Note to Wayne: Nothing here concerns v5 release, I was just trying to get a geom test working for future.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 9:12 AM, John Beard <john.j.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Let's come back to the make test behaviour after v5, I think we'll > need to discuss that separately. However, I think this does illustrate > why we need the tests to be runnable easily, otherwise they suffer > bit-rot, and then the tests are useless. > > Looking at that change, the test is now iterating the second parameter > which is now "max error", not "number of segments". Does this test > still make any sense? It's now comparing: > > SHAPE_POLY_SET::Fillet( radius, error ); > > with > > CPolyLine::Fillet( radius, segments ); > > The original test was designed to ensure SHAPE_POLY_SET::Fillet and > CPolyLine::Fillet were the same, but they now have different > interfaces and semantics. Wouldn't it be better to check > SHAPE_POLY_SET::Fillet (and Chamfer) against some ground truth? > > Cheers, > > John > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Nick Østergaard <oe.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi >> >> I guess we could add it to the qa target somehow? What I don't particularyly >> like with this patch is that executing "make test" does not check for >> dependency changes. >> >> Back to the status about qa_geometry... it did pass a long time ago, doing a >> bit of git bisect points at this commit as the one breaking the test. >> >> fbf10e941bdf26bb3618aba0a1b7c44fd0bafed2 is the first bad commit >> commit fbf10e941bdf26bb3618aba0a1b7c44fd0bafed2 >> Author: Jeff Young >> Date: Thu Mar 22 18:02:45 2018 +0000 >> >> Switch zone fillets to absolute-error algorithm. >> >> And some general cleanup to related constants, etc. >> >> :040000 040000 8b6ad8d44a7b38e0355ce5c8897f823d6255f811 >> 8d54d43a9bd6e5062d6b804890a779e785e430cc M common >> :040000 040000 5a90dc20fe7cb3f74ae1768a5b5024a902c9354d >> a2be92ebd64fd46ad17427e8e3c12da7f10df699 M include >> :040000 040000 af9f333c0f56dca3a90fb7b04f385dbf39425e8d >> 99b5f9757c78216a08220b7eb056f343658b961d M pcbnew >> >> >> Den tor. 5. jul. 2018 kl. 12.13 skrev John Beard <john.j.be...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Are the qa_geometry test supposed to all work? >>> >>> When I run `qa_geometry`, I get 1160 errors like this: >>> >>> error: in "ChamferFillet/Fillet": check { chainPoints.begin(), >>> chainPoints.end() } == { polyPoints.begin(), polyPoints.end() } has >>> failed. >>> >>> Mismatch at position 0: [ 40 | 14 ] != [ 40 | 12 ] >>> Mismatch at position 1: [ 40 | 15 ] != [ 40 | 13 ] >>> Mismatch at position 2: [ 44 | 10 ] != [ 40 | 14 ] >>> Mismatch at position 3: [ 44 | 18 ] != [ 40 | 15 ] >>> Mismatch at position 4: [ 50 | 10 ] != [ 40 | 16 ] >>> Mismatch at position 5: [ 51 | 14 ] != [ 40 | 17 ] >>> Collections size mismatch: 6 != 25 >>> >>> Attached is a patch that enabled CTest tests and adds qa_geometry as a >>> test. Then you can run `make test` or `ctest` to run all tests. I >>> think it would be good to have a single unambigous and easily >>> understood command to be able to run unit tests? >>> >>> This patch explicitly excludes the "ChamferFillet/Fillet" tests as >>> they are failing, but if those tests can be fixed, it would be good to >>> run them too. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> John >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >>> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp