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
use approx
for better failure output
#54
Conversation
Very nice! Are the test failures coming from the switch to a different approximation? |
Yeeeeep sorry. I'm working through updating them. 😓 |
495e232
to
f87775e
Compare
Ok, sorry for the noise. All fixed up! |
Excellent. Thanks! |
Bors r+ |
54: use `approx` for better failure output r=urschrei a=michaelkirk Gives output like: ``` assert_relative_eq!(t.x(), 1450880.29) left = 0.0 right = 1450880.29 ``` vs previously: ``` thread 'proj::test::test_london_inverse' panicked at 'assertion failed: f > 0.99999', src/proj.rs:885:9 ``` Co-authored-by: Michael Kirk <michael.code@endoftheworl.de>
Build failed: |
😤 |
bors retry |
54: use `approx` for better failure output r=urschrei a=michaelkirk Gives output like: ``` assert_relative_eq!(t.x(), 1450880.29) left = 0.0 right = 1450880.29 ``` vs previously: ``` thread 'proj::test::test_london_inverse' panicked at 'assertion failed: f > 0.99999', src/proj.rs:885:9 ``` Co-authored-by: Michael Kirk <michael.code@endoftheworl.de>
Build failed: |
huh... this is indeed the test which apparently tends to flake out... but this time it's "close". Let me dig in a little more and see if this is related to my approx changes this time.
|
I'll rebase this and update expectations from the new test once #56 is merged |
f87775e
to
0cdb489
Compare
bors retry Seems like #56 did the trick! |
Build succeeded: |
Gives output like:
vs previously: