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

Update makeinstancesufo to use latest ufoProcessor #1754

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

punchcutter
Copy link
Contributor

This makes use of the "new" way to use ufoProcessor with UFOOperator. This allows passing the --strict flag from makeinstancesufo to ufoProcessor which passes to fontMath. From fontMath.mathGlyph:

strict (bool): when set to False, offcurve points will be added to all
                straight segments to improve compatibility. Any offcurves that are
                still on-point will be filtered when extracted. When set to True,
                no offcurves will be added or filtered.

This means when making an "Instance" to be inserted back into the designspace we won't run into the situation where points are filtered out, making the new instance incompatible with the original sources.

@punchcutter
Copy link
Contributor Author

punchcutter commented Aug 30, 2024

Oh yeah, tests fail because we need an update to ufoProcessor -> LettError/ufoProcessor#64.
ufoProcessor updated to 1.13.1

@punchcutter punchcutter force-pushed the makeinstances-ufoprocessor-update branch from e90bfb7 to c3a3b6b Compare September 4, 2024 05:15
@punchcutter
Copy link
Contributor Author

This introduces a number of changes to the expected output UFOs, but I believe all of it makes sense and in some cases is now "more correct" so that's a good thing.

Copy link
Collaborator

@skef skef left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good to me.

@skef
Copy link
Collaborator

skef commented Sep 6, 2024

@josh-hadley I believe you were more involved in the discussions about this -- everything look good to you?

@josh-hadley
Copy link
Collaborator

@josh-hadley I believe you were more involved in the discussions about this -- everything look good to you?

Right, I've been informally chatting with @punchcutter about this. This looks good to me and will solve some longstanding annoyances.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants