fix(gui): say that zero loss runs can also mean 100% loss - #215
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The "Loss runs" tooltip said a zero with a run length set means the session was too short, and only a later sentence added 100% loss, where the counter stays at zero however long the session runs. It is now one either/or statement in en, pl and zh, matching the README row. The shipped mobile-lte-to-3g test now walks the steps around the outage on one engine (45, 60, 68, 60 and 68 s) through apply_settings, with packets paced under the scenario's speed caps so every drop is a loss drop. The outage drops everything both times, and the steps around it deliver their own loss in runs again (7.5, 6.3 and 6.4% measured). A new mutation entry proves those assertions can fail. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Warning Review limit reachedNext included review available in 40 minutes. View limit detailsLimit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. Review configuration: ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository UI (base), Organization UI (inherited) Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Advanced Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (6)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Follow-up to #214, from its review.
Tooltip
tips.stat_loss_runsfirst said that a zero with "Losses in a row" set means the session was too short, and only a later sentence added the 100% case, where the counter stays at zero however long the session runs. The two sentences disagreed. It is now one either/or statement in en, pl and zh, matching the READMEloss_runsrow.Test: the steps around the outage, on one engine
test_the_shipped_lte_to_3g_outage_loses_everythingchecked only the 60 s step on a fresh core. It now applies the scenario's steps in turn to ONE engine throughapply_settings, the way a session does: 45, 60, 68, 60 and 68 s, entering and leaving the outage twice. Packets are paced under the scenario's own speed caps, so every drop counted is a loss drop.A new mutation entry (
p = loss * r / room->p = r) is caught by it, so the assertions around the outage can fail.Not changed from the same review: building the path with
pathlib(the surrounding tests useos.path.join, andfakes.ROOTis a string), and replacingrandomwithsecretsin the tests (the seeded generator is what they pin).Run locally:
internal_tools/guards.py --strong --run --lint(10 files, 148 passed) andtests/test_version_and_release.py.🤖 Generated with Claude Code