Move MatterControl dependencies into application layer
This commit is contained in:
parent
fe2f71559f
commit
4ee6169778
5 changed files with 82 additions and 71 deletions
|
|
@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ namespace MatterControl.Tests.MatterControl
|
|||
// Only validate start_gcode configs that have M109 and extrude statements
|
||||
if (startGcode.Contains("M109") && startGcode.Contains("G1 E"))
|
||||
{
|
||||
// Split start_gcode on newlines
|
||||
// Split start_gcode on newlines
|
||||
var lines = startGcode.Split(new string[] { "\\n" }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries).Select(l => l.ToUpper().Trim()).ToList();
|
||||
|
||||
// Find first instance of M109 or 'G1 E' extrude
|
||||
|
|
@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ namespace MatterControl.Tests.MatterControl
|
|||
|
||||
Assert.Less(firstLayerHeight, maximumLayerHeight, "[first_layer_height] must be less than [firstLayerExtrusionWidth]: " + printer.RelativeFilePath);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
});
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ namespace MatterControl.Tests.MatterControl
|
|||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/// <summary>
|
||||
/// Calls the given delegate for each printer as well as each quality/material layer, passing in a PrinterConfig object that has
|
||||
/// Calls the given delegate for each printer as well as each quality/material layer, passing in a PrinterConfig object that has
|
||||
/// printer settings loaded into a SettingsLayer as well as state about the printer
|
||||
/// </summary>
|
||||
/// <param name="action">The action to invoke for each printer</param>
|
||||
|
|
@ -524,8 +524,8 @@ namespace MatterControl.Tests.MatterControl
|
|||
public string RelativeFilePath { get; set; }
|
||||
public PrinterSettings PrinterSettings { get; set; }
|
||||
|
||||
// HACK: short term hack to support a general purpose test rollup function for cases where multiple config files
|
||||
// violate a rule and in the short term we want to report and resolve the issues in batch rather than having a
|
||||
// HACK: short term hack to support a general purpose test rollup function for cases where multiple config files
|
||||
// violate a rule and in the short term we want to report and resolve the issues in batch rather than having a
|
||||
// single test failure. Long term the single test failure better communicates the issue and assist with troubleshooting
|
||||
// by using .AreEqual .LessOrEqual, etc. to communicate intent
|
||||
public bool RuleViolated { get; set; } = false;
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue