[uss_qualifier] uss availability status: version conflict #1137
Conversation
RustedBones
force-pushed
the
uss-qualifier-availability
branch
from
b85bedd to
5f300f8
Compare
|
Run passed with a local image built with interuss/dss#1245 |
| availability_response, get_avail_query = dss.get_uss_availability( | ||
| uss_sub, | ||
| scope=Scope.AvailabilityArbitration, | ||
| ) | ||
| scenario.record_query(get_avail_query) | ||
| availability_version, set_avail_query = dss.set_uss_availability( | ||
| uss_sub, | ||
| True, | ||
| availability_response.version, | ||
| ) | ||
| scenario.record_query(avail_query) | ||
| scenario.record_query(set_avail_query) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure we should be issuing a GET for the availability within this set_uss_available() fragment: I understand why we would want to do it, but I think this would deserve at least a separate check?
Above, we probably want to have a first check that confirms we can obtain the availability (and call the check "USS availability can be successfully obtained"), and have a separate check that confirms we can set it.
Possibly these check can be moved to separate fragments, and composed together in another new fragment.
Note: doing multiple things in a single step or check might have been more common in the past (hence some code samples that you may use as a starting point may do that). If you see spots where we still do this, it's worth keeping track of them in an issue, or cleaning them up right away when that's easy
| ### client_identity | ||
|
|
||
| [`ClientIdentityResource`](../../../../resources/communications/client_identity.py) the client identity that will be used to report the availability status. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Worth noting here that the client identity should include the the availability arbitration scope
RustedBones
force-pushed
the
uss-qualifier-availability
branch
2 times, most recently
from
93bc25d to
43376c2
Compare
| ## [Availability can be read](./dss/fragments/availability/read.md) | ||
|
|
||
| ## [Availability can be updated](./dss/fragments/availability/update.md) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Shastick there are already existing fragments for USS availability in the dss subfolder.
I tried to reuse them here but I don't think the folder layout is appropriate in that case.
Any suggestion on how to do that in a better way ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In what sense is the folder layout not appropriate? You can split/reorganize/rename them if needed. (but it can also happen in another PR, or be tracked with an issue).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the get_uss_availability and set_uss_availability implementing the read and update fragments should be moved closer to the doc.
I'll extract the changes to another PR
get old version before updating availability fix test check mismatch fix doc OVN/version naming record all queries factorize fragments
RustedBones
force-pushed
the
uss-qualifier-availability
branch
from
43376c2 to
d9641fc
Compare
Add scenario for testing USS availability status update conflict.
The
409conflict code is not part of the official ASTM-UTM spec. This might need to be moved tointerusspackage.