Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Refactor misc.py #1276
Refactor misc.py #1276
Changes from 4 commits
87bcbf8
26c8105
6721273
0c8e2c3
09d5bea
5abdb5a
abe3db1
4852c50
dd46026
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
_get_path_in_install
should be enriched to also check the existence of thedpf
folder, where the majority of libraries are now placedThere 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.
@rafacanton we could, yet checks are usually made in methods which call
_get_path_in_install
:That would mean refactoring all of those.
Still I agree that the current checks may not be enough. We should check that a given list of DLLs (TBD) is actually present.
This can be added to the objectives of this issue/PR, what do you think?
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.
@rafacanton while implementing a test for
dpf/bin/winx64
ordpf/bin/linx64
folder, I realized that we may have an issue inServerFactory.get_server_type_from_config
which basically enforces use ofAWP_ROOT242
when in non-legacy Grpc to define the aisol path to add to PATH... I think this is quite a problem. I also noticed that we still use_find_outdated_ansys_version()
which tests for Ansys versions below 221... I do not think we still need that as it was used to forceLegacyGrpc
connections for servers 221 or below while now we could argue that the client itself does not support servers below 222. If we allow this connection to happen, there WILL be failures anyway.I think there may be a lot of refactoring to do here.
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.
Note: adding the test for a dpf folder, yet it appears consistently only starting with 231.