-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[mathTransform] what's the purpose of test_functions
unit test?
#35
Comments
@typesupply I'm going to temporarily disable this test, as it risks making the whole CI build fail in random fashion (not nice while you're tagging a release). |
I don't know anything about this functionality. Sorry. I think @LettError added it here: 4a1f0fc Erik, any advice? |
Ok thanks Tal. |
I will look at this next week, sorry.
Erik
… On 27 Jan 2017, at 18:00, Tal Leming ***@***.***> wrote:
I don't know anything about this functionality. Sorry. I think @LettError added it here: 4a1f0fc Erik, any advice?
―
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
At least until we figure out what it's actually doing. #35 https://travis-ci.org/typesupply/fontMath/builds/279556453
I have disabled the intermittently failing E.g. see one recent Travis build failure caused by that: https://travis-ci.org/typesupply/fontMath/builds/279556453 I don't have the time to investigate right now. I think it's better to disable it until somebody figures out how to properly fix it. Very low priority. |
It's not clear to me what the purpose of
test_mathTransform.py::MathTransformTest.test_functions
is.It seems to assert that at least for some of the
_testData
, the threetestFunctions
yield slightly different results.However:
Another problem is that since the interpolation value is
random.random()
, sometimes the test can unpredictably fail (i.e.FontMathWarning
is never raised, all results are same between functions), for example:https://travis-ci.org/typesupply/fontMath/jobs/172252357#L356
I think we need to narrow this test down a little bit, though I'm not sure how.
Maybe @typesupply or @moyogo can shed some light?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: