Open kierdavis opened 5 years ago
Also worth noting that I didn't see this working once during the summer school.
@trickeydan were you using Robot(debug=True)
? It (deliberately) won't be visible if not.
I've just checked that it still works by adding logging.basicConfig(level=logging.DEBUG)
to one of the tests_hw
scripts in this repo. Of course, it could be something in the sbot Robot
constructor that's causing the logging to not get configured correctly.
I was using Robot(debug=True)
, we should test this specifically with the sbot
implementation
we should test this specifically with the sbot implementation
We should. I foolishly didn't bring any dev kit home with me, so someone else will have to do the honours :/
Are you sure? I tried my best to make sure the dev kit box stayed in Southampton, and the inventory agrees:
[kier@saelli:~/checkouts/srobo/inventory]$ ls southampton/minibots-cupboards/box-18l-rub-sr1XL2A/
info motor-board-mcv4b-sr0LK12 motor-board-mcv4b-sr0VJ1K odroid-u3-sr1TJ7A servo-board-sbv4b-sr0GJ37 servo-board-sbv4b-sr0RH3N webcam-logitech-c270-sr2WT25 webcam-logitech-c500-sr1N16
motor-board-mcv4b-sr0GK1A motor-board-mcv4b-sr0NAN motor-board-mcv4b-sr0XK1E odroid-u3-sr1YH71 servo-board-sbv4b-sr0HJ35 servo-board-sbv4b-sr0UH3J webcam-logitech-c270-srEP37 webcam-logitech-c500-sr2H7W
motor-board-mcv4b-sr0GL19 motor-board-mcv4b-sr0QJ1U motor-board-mcv4b-sr0YK1C power-board-pbv4b-sr0KQ2W servo-board-sbv4b-sr0KH32 servo-board-sbv4b-sr0XH3C webcam-logitech-c270-srEX30 webcam-logitech-c500-srM1K94
motor-board-mcv4b-sr0HL17 motor-board-mcv4b-sr0UJ1M odroid-u3-sr1JJ7T power-board-pbv4b-sr0NW2J servo-board-sbv4b-sr0LQ2U servo-board-sbv4b-sr0YH3A webcam-logitech-c270-srEY3Y
motor-board-mcv4b-sr0JK16 motor-board-mcv4b-sr0UK1L odroid-u3-sr1LH7P power-board-pbv4b-sr0PW2G servo-board-sbv4b-sr0PH3T usb-hub-startech-sr1MQ3N webcam-logitech-c270-srN1X34
I'd recommend double-checking whether this RUB is in the cupboard or not.
I think this getting off-topic.
Regardless, sbot can operate without a servo board, and we can certainly test this feature without one. I don't think this warrants a "blocked" label.
From #369:
We should review whether this implementation is too complex/unclear to be maintainable.