Integration tests improvements

[gupichon]

Work in progree

[gupichon]

@JeanLucPons, @TeresiaOlsson, @gubaidulinvadim, @kparasch, @simoneliuzzo, @ everybody...
Hello all, I would like to get some suggestions for the integration tests. For now, I have a complete model with a basic test and a modular configuration. I am working on additional tests, but I would highly appreciate any contributions.

Feel free to contribute directly to the branch if you want, preferably in separate files. I can also build a lightweight configuration if needed.

[gubaidulinvadim]

@gupichon I can have a look, but I prefer to do it after the latest changes on the twin side from Waheed are included.

[gupichon]

@gupichon I can have a look, but I prefer to do it after the latest changes on the twin side from Waheed are included.

I agree, but it would help me if I had a concrete idea of the tests to be implemented.

[TeresiaOlsson]

I'm wondering if we should turn everything we have in examples to integration tests instead? We needed the examples for the last workshop but they are starting to feel more and more difficult to maintain since they are not included in the tests. Maybe now they would be better as integration tests instead?

Especially since I'm working on making a separate repository for documentation which should include tutorials and then the purpose the examples had will be covered by those instead.

[gupichon]

I'm wondering if we should turn everything we have in examples to integration tests instead? We needed the examples for the last workshop but they are starting to feel more and more difficult to maintain since they are not included in the tests. Maybe now they would be better as integration tests instead?

Especially since I'm working on making a separate repository for documentation which should include tutorials and then the purpose the examples had will be covered by those instead.

For now, I'm mainly experimenting with the twin. As for the examples, they are just loaded, nothing is executed. They should be removed if the examples are moved to another repository. The idea here is that as long as they are inside the pyaml repository, a test should check if they are still valid.
But yes, I'm trying to create some tests based on the examples to make sure the twin executes properly and works as intended.

[gubaidulinvadim]

I'm wondering if we should turn everything we have in examples to integration tests instead? We needed the examples for the last workshop but they are starting to feel more and more difficult to maintain since they are not included in the tests. Maybe now they would be better as integration tests instead?

Especially since I'm working on making a separate repository for documentation which should include tutorials and then the purpose the examples had will be covered by those instead.

This is mostly the configuration file changes that have broken the examples recently. Everything else is mostly intact and/or very easy and quick to fix.

[JeanLucPons]

I did a a test. The chroma measure seems OK (zero chroma).

But I get losts of errors "DeviceNotImported".

What do you expect, do you you want we add other tests ? I think the computation of the ORM,CRM,TRM on this small lattice should be fast enough to be computed.

[JeanLucPons]

My prefix in fodo_1gev_6d_pyaml-oa.yaml is well there:

controls:
- type: pyaml_cs_oa.controlsystem
  name: live
  prefix: //ubuntu24acu.esrf.fr:30000/
  catalog: fodo_1gev_6d_pyaml_catalogs-oa.yaml

[gubaidulinvadim]

@JeanLucPons, attention: TRM will not work in the present twin version; there's a bug. The rest should be fine.