Don't rely on the order of a battery set in tests

These tests rely on the order in which components are returned from the
component graph using `all_batteries[:2]` to get the first 2 batteries.

But the component graph returns a `set`, which doesn't have any ordering
guarantees, so if the Python implementation changes, the hashing can
change and this resulting order could be different, breaking the tests.

This is why we are now specifying IDs to use explicitly (these are the
IDs that were used when the tests were written). This can also change in
the future if generator of mock components changes, as it might produce
different IDs, so this solution is also not bullet-proof.

Signed-off-by: Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]>

Author: llucax

tests/timeseries/_battery_pool/test_battery_pool.py

@@ -198,11 +198,21 @@ async def setup_batteries_pool(mocker: MockerFixture) -> AsyncIterator[SetupArgs
     # the scope of this tests. This tests should cover BatteryPool only.
     # We use our own battery status channel, where we easily control set of working
     # batteries.
-    all_batteries = list(get_components(mock_microgrid, ComponentCategory.BATTERY))
+    all_batteries = get_components(mock_microgrid, ComponentCategory.BATTERY)
 
-    battery_pool = microgrid.new_battery_pool(
-        priority=5, component_ids=set(all_batteries[:2])
-    )
+    # This is a hack because these tests used to rely on the order in which components
+    # are returned from the component graph using `all_batteries[:2]` to get the first 2
+    # batteries. But the component graph returns a set, which doesn't have any ordering
+    # guarantees, so if the Python implementation changes, the hashing can change and
+    # this resulting order could be different, breaking the tests. This is why we are
+    # now specifying IDs to use explicitly (these are the IDs that were used when the
+    # tests were written). This can also change in the future if generator of mock
+    # components changes, as it might produce different IDs, so this solution is also
+    # not bullet-proof.
+    assert 8 in all_batteries
+    assert 11 in all_batteries
+
+    battery_pool = microgrid.new_battery_pool(priority=5, component_ids=set([8, 11]))
 
     dp = microgrid._data_pipeline._DATA_PIPELINE
     assert dp is not None
@@ -1125,7 +1135,7 @@ async def run_power_bounds_test(  # pylint: disable=too-many-locals
     )
     compare_messages(msg, expected)
 
-    batteries_in_pool = list(battery_pool.component_ids)
+    batteries_in_pool = list(sorted(battery_pool.component_ids))
     scenarios: list[Scenario[SystemBounds]] = [
         Scenario(
             next(iter(bat_invs_map[batteries_in_pool[0]])),