-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
19 renaming ioinputs to inputs and iooutputs to outputs #22
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the renaming looks correct, however the unrelated changes need to be explained/addresses before we merge this
src/main/java/frc/robot/Robot.java
Outdated
@@ -32,23 +29,24 @@ public void robotInit() { | |||
Logger.addDataReceiver(new WPILOGWriter()); // Log to a USB stick ("/U/logs") | |||
Logger.addDataReceiver(new NT4Publisher()); // Publish data to NetworkTables | |||
new PowerDistribution(1, ModuleType.kRev); // Enables power distribution logging | |||
} else if (Constants.currentMode == Constants.Mode.SIM) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are we reverting this stuff? Shouldn't we maintain a sim mode separate from replay mode.
Also why are we doing this in this PR? I would expect renaming only
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this was done in Aiden's reformatting branch- this is branched off of that- and there was an issue with the replaying log?
@@ -109,8 +124,8 @@ private void configureBindings() { | |||
.onFalse(new InstantCommand(() -> intakeSubsystem.run(IntakeAction.NONE))); | |||
} | |||
|
|||
if (Constants.FeatureFlags.runScoring) { | |||
|
|||
if (FeatureFlags.runScoring && Robot.isReal() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are we making this change?
One core idea behind the feature flags is to make the configuration identical in sim as on the robot. The simulated robot is a "digital twin" to the real life robot. So if we have two sets of flags that could result in configuration management problems ("it works in sim but not on the robot" because the feature flags aren't harmonized, or worse "the subsystem was disabled in sim but not in real life").
I think both of these changes are mirrors of stuff on Aiden's branch- should I redo the renaming so that it is branched off of main, or should I wait until Aiden's PR solves things and rebase then? thank you! |
Let's wait until that branch is fixed and then rebase @minhnguyenbhs |
@minhnguyenbhs I fixed my branch and merged it, you can merge main into yours and the problems should be resolved now. Sorry for propagating all of my garbage code into your branch lol |
…egin feature-flagging scoring and intake
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Approved!
very minor heading name changes, should work normally