Skip to content
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

compare_PigLatinTest_v2 fails #36

Closed
bgermann opened this issue Feb 8, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

compare_PigLatinTest_v2 fails #36

bgermann opened this issue Feb 8, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@bgermann
Copy link
Contributor

bgermann commented Feb 8, 2021

Forwarded from https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=980699

This is a follow-up on #32. With its fix a9e6dec applied, the test still seems to fail under some condition. The Debian report is for amd64 this time.

@devosb
Copy link
Contributor

devosb commented Feb 8, 2021

From talking with @tim-eves I think there are/were two bugs in the testing framework related to the failing test. One bug was fixed last year with a9e6dec to fix #32. There is another bug involving a year timestamp, which is why the error did not show up last year.

The confusing part is both bugs show up with the same message

PigLatinTest_v2.ttf" to "/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/test/GrcRegressionTest/fonts/PigLatinBenchmark_v2.ttf" are different

@nrsiward
Copy link
Contributor

The unique id in the name table along with several other name ids are changed if the font name is changed. The current year is added to the unique id. When the compiler was developed, we likely didn't think it worth the effort to update the unique id year if no other name table changes were needed.

Since the unique id does have to be changed with a font name change, should we preserve the year from the input ttf?

@nrsiward
Copy link
Contributor

We generally preserve the 'unique font id' date field from the input ttf. Also, update the PigLatinBenchmark_v2.ttf. See #9ef83bd

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants