[ImageJ-devel] IJ1 unit tests

[Adam Fraser]

hooray!

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Barry DeZonia <bdezonia at wisc.edu> wrote:

> All,
>
> I have updated the tests as Wayne suggested. All of them are now passing.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Curtis Rueden <ctrueden at wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wayne,
>>
>>
>> I was able to run all the failing tests.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Curtis
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Rasband, Wayne (NIH/NIMH) [E] <
>> rasbandw at mail.nih.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Curtis & Barry,
>>>
>>> I was able to run all the failing tests. Thanks for pointing me to the
>>> right place on imagejdev website.
>>>
>>> >1. testDrawPixelsImageProcessor(ij.gui.ArrowTest): expected:<0> but
>>> was:<73>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> > 2. testFitSplineForStraightening(ij.gui.PolygonRoiTest): array lengths
>>> differed, expected.length=4 actual.length=8
>>>
>>> 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().
>>>
>>> > 3. testGetUncalibratedLength(ij.gui.PolygonRoiTest): expected:<1.0> but
>>> was:<6.324555320336759>
>>>
>>> This is a bug in the test. The distance between (1,3) and (5,11) is not
>>> 1.0.
>>>
>>> > 4. testGetConvexHull(ij.gui.ShapeRoiTest)
>>>
>>> This test assumes that ShapeRoi.getConvexHull() always returns null,
>>> which is no longer the case.
>>>
>>> > 5. testGetFeretValues(ij.gui.ShapeRoiTest): arrays first differed at
>>> element [0]; expected:<10.44016> but was:<10.44030650891055>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> > 6. testGetPixels(ij.VirtualStackTest): arrays first differed at element
>>> [2]; expected:<0> but was:<120>
>>> > 7.    testGetProcessor(ij.VirtualStackTest): arrays first differed at
>>> element [2]; expected:<0> but was:<120>
>>>
>>> The virtual stack tests assume the two images in the virtual stack are
>>> 2x3 but they are actually 3x2.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> -wayne
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Curtis Rueden wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi Wayne et. al,
>>> >
>>> > 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."
>>> >
>>> > I have had a ticket about this situation (
>>> http://dev.imagejdev.org/trac/imagej/ticket/598) 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.
>>> >
>>> > I ran them against all development versions of 1.45 (a through q) and
>>> saved the result as a blog post:
>>> >   http://imagejdev.org/2011/10/07/unit-tests-imagej-1x
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>> >
>>> > Instructions on running the tests yourself can be found here:
>>> >   http://imagejdev.org/source-code#Running_ImageJ_1.x_unit_tests
>>> >
>>> > My plan is to hook up the tests to Hudson (
>>> http://dev.imagejdev.org:8080/) and have it send an email whenever a new
>>> version of IJ1 is released with failing tests.
>>> >
>>> > What do you think?
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Curtis
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ImageJ-devel mailing list
> ImageJ-devel at imagejdev.org
> http://imagejdev.org/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://imagej.net/pipermail/imagej-devel/attachments/20111011/5242c1a7/attachment.html>