Skip to content

nirfsg- Fix ErrorMessage API #2174

Open
rahur-NI wants to merge 4 commits intoni:masterfrom
rahur-NI:nirfsgFixErrorMessageMethod
Open

nirfsg- Fix ErrorMessage API #2174
rahur-NI wants to merge 4 commits intoni:masterfrom
rahur-NI:nirfsgFixErrorMessageMethod

Conversation

@rahur-NI
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rahur-NI rahur-NI commented Apr 2, 2026

  • 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?

This PR fixes error_message method in nifrsg. The ErrorMessage parameter was passed as an input parameter, but the niRFSG_ErrorMessage C API returns the error string.
Changes:

  • Changed errorMessage parameter direction from 'in' to 'out' in nirfsg metadata.

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

What testing has been done?

  • A successful tox execution and the changes in the generated files are with respect to the parameter errorMessage treated as an output parameter instead of input parameter.

@rahur-NI rahur-NI marked this pull request as ready for review April 2, 2026 12:29
@codecov-commenter
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov-commenter commented Apr 2, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 33.33333% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.85%. Comparing base (f77dd57) to head (6e4959a).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
generated/nirfsg/nirfsg/_grpc_stub_interpreter.py 33.33% 2 Missing ⚠️
generated/nirfsg/nirfsg/_library_interpreter.py 33.33% 2 Missing ⚠️
generated/nirfsg/nirfsg/session.py 33.33% 2 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (33.33%) is below the target coverage (70.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2174      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.18%   89.85%   -1.33%     
==========================================
  Files          67       73       +6     
  Lines       16489    19006    +2517     
==========================================
+ Hits        15035    17078    +2043     
- Misses       1454     1928     +474
Flag Coverage Δ
codegenunittests 84.90% <ø> (ø)
nidcpowersystemtests 94.65% <ø> (+0.04%) ⬆️
nidcpowerunittests 89.53% <ø> (ø)
nidigitalsystemtests 92.26% <ø> (ø)
nidigitalunittests 68.44% <ø> (ø)
nidmmsystemtests 92.72% <ø> (ø)
nifakeunittests 86.01% <ø> (ø)
nifgensystemtests 94.61% <ø> (ø)
nimodinstsystemtests 73.85% <ø> (ø)
nimodinstunittests 94.20% <ø> (ø)
nirfsgsystemtests 81.12% <33.33%> (?)
niscopesystemtests 92.94% <ø> (ø)
niscopeunittests 43.20% <ø> (ø)
nisesystemtests 91.50% <ø> (ø)
niswitchsystemtests 82.03% <ø> (ø)
nitclksystemtests 94.87% <ø> (ø)
nitclkunittests 98.26% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
generated/nirfsg/nirfsg/_grpc_stub_interpreter.py 78.32% <33.33%> (ø)
generated/nirfsg/nirfsg/_library_interpreter.py 74.14% <33.33%> (ø)
generated/nirfsg/nirfsg/session.py 90.01% <33.33%> (ø)

... and 4 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 f77dd57...6e4959a. Read the comment docs.

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

ni-jfitzger
ni-jfitzger reviewed Apr 2, 2026
View reviewed changes
ni-jfitzger
ni-jfitzger approved these changes Apr 2, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@ni-jfitzger ni-jfitzger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not going to tell you to remove this function, since we spent enough time going over the API already and we ship this in at least a couple of other APIs, but I honestly have no idea what purpose it serves in our Python API. We already handle errors for the user with get_error().

@marcoskirsch do you know why we included this in other APIs?

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

Reviewers

@ni-jfitzger ni-jfitzger ni-jfitzger approved these changes

@marcoskirsch marcoskirsch Awaiting requested review from marcoskirsch marcoskirsch is a code owner

@vnktshr21 vnktshr21 Awaiting requested review from vnktshr21 vnktshr21 is a code owner

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@rahur-NI @codecov-commenter @ni-jfitzger