hooray!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Barry DeZonia <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bdezonia@wisc.edu">bdezonia@wisc.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
All,<br><br>I have updated the tests as Wayne suggested. All of them are now passing.<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Curtis Rueden <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ctrueden@wisc.edu" target="_blank">ctrueden@wisc.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Wayne,<div><br><br><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
I was able to run all the failing tests.<br></blockquote>
<br></div>Thanks for investigating. Barry is updating the tests now in response to your comments, and will reply with any remaining issues. We should have all the tests passing again very soon, and will get them automated soon as well.<br>
<br>Regards,<br><font color="#888888">Curtis</font><div><div></div><div><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Rasband, Wayne (NIH/NIMH) [E] <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rasbandw@mail.nih.gov" target="_blank">rasbandw@mail.nih.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Curtis & Barry,<br>
<br>
I was able to run all the failing tests. Thanks for pointing me to the right place on imagejdev website.<br>
<br>
>1. testDrawPixelsImageProcessor(ij.gui.ArrowTest): expected:<0> but was:<73><br>
<br>
ImageJ 1.45 uses a different method for drawing arrows. This change was required to support outlined arrows. Arrows drawn with the new method do not have the exact same pixel layout. I would recommend removing this test.<br>
<br>
> 2. testFitSplineForStraightening(ij.gui.PolygonRoiTest): array lengths differed, expected.length=4 actual.length=8<br>
<br>
This test assumes that the number of points in a polygon ROI is the same as the size of the array returned by getXCoordinates(), which is not necessarily the case. It is better to use getPolygon() or getFloatPolygon().<br>
<br>
> 3. testGetUncalibratedLength(ij.gui.PolygonRoiTest): expected:<1.0> but was:<6.324555320336759><br>
<br>
This is a bug in the test. The distance between (1,3) and (5,11) is not 1.0.<br>
<br>
> 4. testGetConvexHull(ij.gui.ShapeRoiTest)<br>
<br>
This test assumes that ShapeRoi.getConvexHull() always returns null, which is no longer the case.<br>
<br>
> 5. testGetFeretValues(ij.gui.ShapeRoiTest): arrays first differed at element [0]; expected:<10.44016> but was:<10.44030650891055><br>
<br>
The ShapeRoi.getFeretValues() method in v1.45 calculates the Feret diameter of simple ROIs more accurately. Perhaps this test needs to use a larger tolerance value.<br>
<br>
> 6. testGetPixels(ij.VirtualStackTest): arrays first differed at element [2]; expected:<0> but was:<120><br>
> 7. testGetProcessor(ij.VirtualStackTest): arrays first differed at element [2]; expected:<0> but was:<120><br>
<br>
The virtual stack tests assume the two images in the virtual stack are 2x3 but they are actually 3x2.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-wayne</font><br><div>
<br>
<br>
On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Curtis Rueden wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div>> Hi Wayne et. al,<br>
><br>
> For quite some time now, we have had unit tests (written by Barry) for testing the behavior of IJ1. Unfortunately, they were originally written to compile against a patched version of IJ1 and we neglected to update them to work with IJ1 "out of the box."<br>
><br>
> I have had a ticket about this situation (<a href="http://dev.imagejdev.org/trac/imagej/ticket/598" target="_blank">http://dev.imagejdev.org/trac/imagej/ticket/598</a>) for the past few months, but have only just now finally fixed the tests to work against various versions of IJ1 from 1.44 onwards.<br>
><br>
> I ran them against all development versions of 1.45 (a through q) and saved the result as a blog post:<br>
> <a href="http://imagejdev.org/2011/10/07/unit-tests-imagej-1x" target="_blank">http://imagejdev.org/2011/10/07/unit-tests-imagej-1x</a><br>
><br>
> It looks like from 1.45a through 1.45q, a total of 7 code changes were introduced that result in test failures. These could be the result of bugfixes, or they could be new regressions. I wanted to let you know in case you were interested in pursuing these bugs, since I know how much you value backwards compatibility.<br>
><br>
> Instructions on running the tests yourself can be found here:<br>
> <a href="http://imagejdev.org/source-code#Running_ImageJ_1.x_unit_tests" target="_blank">http://imagejdev.org/source-code#Running_ImageJ_1.x_unit_tests</a><br>
><br>
> My plan is to hook up the tests to Hudson (<a href="http://dev.imagejdev.org:8080/" target="_blank">http://dev.imagejdev.org:8080/</a>) and have it send an email whenever a new version of IJ1 is released with failing tests.<br>
><br>
> What do you think?<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Curtis<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
ImageJ-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ImageJ-devel@imagejdev.org">ImageJ-devel@imagejdev.org</a><br>
<a href="http://imagejdev.org/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel" target="_blank">http://imagejdev.org/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>