-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 291
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
Fix sketch solver line_point method relative/absolute mixup #1336
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1336 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.30% 94.16% -0.15%
==========================================
Files 26 26
Lines 5584 5584
Branches 954 954
==========================================
- Hits 5266 5258 -8
- Misses 187 194 +7
- Partials 131 132 +1
... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The fix itself looks good.
There is an assert missing here in the tests:
Line 643 in 7143ead
(midpoint - seg1.startPoint()).Length == approx(2) |
I'd suggest to add the assert to line 643. It should be sufficient for testing the fix.
assert (midpoint - seg1.startPoint()).Length == approx(2)
I've added a comment regarding the new pytest with sketch "s8". Since the sketch solver is experimental, it might be easier to keep the tests simple (skip adding the new test) since rework may be required later. @voneiden , @adam-urbanczyk , if you disagree and want to keep the additional test please disregard that item.
Enable assert that fails without the fix ( issue CadQuery#1127 )
388e507
to
d842d98
Compare
There we go, verified that the assert is indeed enough to test this fix. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @voneiden!
Was that an accidental wrong branch for your commit 62d2a4c @adam-urbanczyk ? |
It was on purpose - trying to fix appveyor |
Green, thanks @voneiden ! |
Closes #1127