rdm translate flattened_gtest_results breaks make

[hshuaib90]

When running rdm translate on xunit-style results, the flattened_gtest_results doesn't pick up req_ids (I'm not sure how it would?) and therefore when I go to make my documents, I get the following error:

File "./documents/test_record.md", line 36, in block "test_results" | {{ test_name }} | {{ unit_test_record[test_name].result }} | {{ unit_test_record[test_name].req_ids }} | {% if unit_test_record[test_name].note is defined %}{{ unit_test_record[test_name].note }}{% endif %} | jinja2.exceptions.UndefinedError: 'dict object' has no attribute 'req_ids'

How would you plan to include req_ids from translate output? I use pytest for my python code and that provides the record_property fixture which can be used to inject into the XML report, which can then be picked up by translate.

[johndgiese]

@hshuaib90 this is a great question! At the moment, we have not agreed on the best approach to solving this problem. On our own projects, I believe we have thus far entered the req_ids manually. This is certainly not ideal!

Thank you for creating an issue for this. How has your experience with RDM been so far? Let us know if you have any other questions or comments. We are slowly improving it as we have used it on our own projects.

[johndgiese]

(@orwonthe may be able to comment further)

[hshuaib90]

Thanks for the response @johndgiese ! I have only just started investigating RDM and am exploring using it as part of our EU-MDR compliance in our institution.

Are you looking to solve this issue internally or are you open to external PRs to solve this?

[johndgiese]

@hshuaib90 if you have any ideas about how you would want this issue to be solved, we would love to hear them. A PR may be helpful too, but perhaps only after discussing the problem further and arriving at some consensus for the approach.

[johndgiese]

@hshuaib90 did you guys end up using RDM? Any thoughts or suggestions for how we can improve it?

[hshuaib90]

Got sidetracked unfortunately. Still fully intend to explore it hopefully before the end of the year and will get back to you with more detailed thoughts and suggestions.

…

On 9 Oct 2020, at 23:47, David Giese ***@***.***> wrote: @hshuaib90 <https://github.com/hshuaib90> did you guys end up using RDM? Any thoughts or suggestions for how we can improve it? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#45 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXL32MKWGOLFUBVOAF7UVLSJ6HJZANCNFSM4KV4QTRQ>.

[johndgiese]

@hshuaib90 thank you for the response. Candid feedback will help prevent us from fitting RDM too closely to Innolitics' workflow.