C2LC-89: Wait on empty ('none') program steps for a period of time

Description

Rather than skipping over immediately.

Issue Links

• Related to C2LC-107: Disable the run button when program is empty
• Related to C2LC-97: Don't remove 'none' blocks from the end of the program

Comments

• Daniel Cho commented 2019-12-09T16:45:47.634-0500

  Now ‘none’ is not just a place holder when program is running, I am wondering if we need ProgramUtils.trimEnd, in case users want to create multiple ‘none’ blocks and then use a command block – later on if that command block is deleted, all the ‘none’ blocks those were created will be deleted as well.

• Daniel Cho commented 2019-12-10T14:42:01.159-0500

  Possible approach would be add ‘none’ command handler to interpreter from the dashDriver:

  this.interpreter.addCommandHandler('none', 'dash',
                      this.dashDriver.none.bind(this.dashDriver));
  

  And specify none() in DashDriver class as:

  none(): Promise<void> {
          return this.sendCommand(
              [],
              1900
          );
      }
  

• Simon Bates commented 2019-12-10T15:50:59.347-0500

  Implementing the ‘none’ handler separate from Dash would give us more flexibility when we support multiple robots. I’m thinking something like:

  this.interpreter.addCommandHandler(
      'none',
      'noneHandler',
      () => {
          return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
              setTimeout(() => {
                  resolve();
              }, 1900);
          });
      }
  );
  

• Simon Bates commented 2019-12-10T15:52:27.563-0500

  And probably a good idea to extract the timeout (1900) and store that somewhere separate from the handler, like in the App state.

• Daniel Cho commented 2019-12-10T15:53:34.015-0500

  Ah, that’s really good idea! I didn’t think about using anonymous function to return promise like that.

• Daniel Cho commented 2019-12-11T10:36:34.109-0500

  Thanks Simon! I used your implementation for this work, and the code is working perfectly.

• Michelle D'Souza commented 2020-01-22T15:13:07.075-0500

  Given the design changes for 0.3, it doesn’t make sense to do this task for 0.2.