Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 36 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Issue #50: boolean functions - 3 #1202
Adds test functions with bool return statements rather then calling
Complements an earlier PR with further development in
Once this phase is completed a review of the
I believe that this PR completes the objectives of Issue #50.
Some of the files touched in this PR may not be directly related to the
Each function included has its own test file modeled off the existing tests used for the check functions. In my environment all of these replicated tests pass as expected.
By submitting this pull request, the copyright holder is agreeing to license the submitted work under the following licenses:
I'm not clear as to why this test is causing Jenkins to fail. The culprit
The only thing I notice now in
Here is the test case
It's tempting to comment out the test but I doubt that is a good solution.
Can we really be sure that
will never have NaNs? I dont think we want uninitialized values in tests. There were (or may still be) some cases of uninitalized vectors that were causing random errors, so we should avoid this.
I agree that we cannot. The error is of my own making.
What was confusing was that I reviewed the last commit and there is only one
The error for the test case is that there also exists one new test file:
As a matter of fact there exist a couple more
Something seems to have been caught by Jenkins for the
Since there is no proper calling function it is right to delete the blocking test here. Why exactly it blocked the build while the others do not I can't guess.
Should the other redundant but innocuous test files be removed? They may still be useful at some point.
I'm not sure why Jenkins did this after a minor typo edit to a previously and now still passing test.
Otherwise I'm certain this request should build. Regardless I just merged upstream to restart the CI tests.
bob-carpenter left a comment
Thanks for taking on this massive project.
I'm running out of steam about halfway through here and am hoping you can apply some of the general principles throughout and I can just take a pass through the whole thing again.
It might be easier going forward to use smaller pull requests to iron out general principles before applying them everywhere like this. I feel bad asking for so many changes at this late stage.
It's been a great opportunity to learn about the structure of a large C++ project. As of today I have a last final exam Tuesday morning and I need to allocate the bulk of my weekend towards that so I hope to make incremental progress later into the nights (if at all) until then.
There is certainly a lot of repetition here and I intended this to be one of three smaller PR segments but for whatever reasons this ended up including quite a lot of changes. It should be possible to split this into two PRs.
I have no problem making whatever changes you need to feel comfortable about code quality. It's been your review and suggestions which help me the most. I responded to @syclik and asked for a project that wasn't time dependent so I've appreciated the flexibility to pick away at this over the past 3 months of my sophomore year. I have no problem continuing for however much longer is necessary for this to be beneficial to the developer team and consistent with the quality of the rest of the project.