Skip to content

Conversation

vnktshr21
Copy link
Contributor

@vnktshr21 vnktshr21 commented Sep 11, 2025

  • This contribution adheres to CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I've updated CHANGELOG.md if applicable.
  • I've added tests applicable for this pull request

What does this Pull Request accomplish?

  • Examples updated
    • Fix default value for option string in examples to be empty
    • Make resource name default as PXI1Slot2 to be consistent with other driver examples
    • Changed options in test_example function to use python style objects to specify options instead of string
      • This will demonstrate the objects way of specifying Initialize options (change is internal though)
    • Renamed the simulated device name used in test functions

List issues fixed by this Pull Request below, if any.

None

What testing has been done?

  • Examples do not default to simulation option string if not specified

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 11, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.18%. Comparing base (b5ffa43) to head (844ac08).

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2130      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.72%   89.18%   +7.45%     
==========================================
  Files          29       71      +42     
  Lines        4115    18960   +14845     
==========================================
+ Hits         3363    16909   +13546     
- Misses        752     2051    +1299     
Flag Coverage Δ
codegenunittests 84.44% <ø> (ø)
nidcpowersystemtests 94.65% <ø> (?)
nidcpowerunittests 89.53% <ø> (ø)
nidigitalsystemtests 92.26% <ø> (?)
nidigitalunittests 68.44% <ø> (ø)
nidmmsystemtests 92.72% <ø> (?)
nifakeunittests 85.52% <ø> (ø)
nifgensystemtests 94.61% <ø> (?)
nimodinstsystemtests 73.85% <ø> (?)
nimodinstunittests 94.20% <ø> (ø)
nirfsgsystemtests 76.53% <ø> (?)
niscopesystemtests 92.94% <ø> (?)
niscopeunittests 43.20% <ø> (ø)
nisesystemtests 91.50% <ø> (?)
niswitchsystemtests 82.03% <ø> (?)
nitclksystemtests 94.87% <ø> (?)
nitclkunittests 98.26% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 46 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b5ffa43...844ac08. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Member

@marcoskirsch marcoskirsch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I assume this matches other examples?

@vnktshr21
Copy link
Contributor Author

@marcoskirsch I assume this matches other examples?

The option string default now aligns with other driver examples. However I do not see other drivers making resource name as required input. I made it required here mainly to catch it if its missing, at the example level itself instead of letting driver initialize error out.

@marcoskirsch
Copy link
Member

The option string default now aligns with other driver examples. However I do not see other drivers making resource name as required input. I made it required here mainly to catch it if its missing, at the example level itself instead of letting driver initialize error out.

I think you should stay consistent. If you think making the resource name required, then make the change consistently in another PR. But I think many drivers allow leaving resource name blank in cases of simulation so that's probably why it's not required.

@vnktshr21
Copy link
Contributor Author

Made the resource name to be not required to be consistent with other driver examples. Made the resource name default value to be PXI1Slot2 to be consistent with other driver examples.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants