-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 50
Fix inconsistence in nodebreaker topology switches count #3678
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Fix inconsistence in nodebreaker topology switches count #3678
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Giovanni Ferrari <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Giovanni Ferrari <[email protected]>
| .setNode(2) | ||
| .add(); | ||
|
|
||
| // Create 3 switches |
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.
| // Create 3 switches | |
| // Create 2 switches |
| * Test to verify consistency between getSwitches(), getSwitchStream(), and | ||
| * getSwitchCount() methods | ||
| * in node-breaker topology. These methods should all exclude | ||
| * InternalConnections and only return | ||
| * real voltage level switches. |
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.
| * Test to verify consistency between getSwitches(), getSwitchStream(), and | |
| * getSwitchCount() methods | |
| * in node-breaker topology. These methods should all exclude | |
| * InternalConnections and only return | |
| * real voltage level switches. | |
| * Test to verify consistency between getSwitches(), getSwitchStream(), and | |
| * getSwitchCount() methods in node-breaker topology. These methods should all exclude | |
| * InternalConnections and only return real voltage level switches. |
Signed-off-by: Giovanni Ferrari <[email protected]>
|
rolnico
left a comment
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.
LGTM



Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?
#3631
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?
If yes, please check if the following requirements are fulfilled
What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR? (migration steps)
Other information: