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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix failing tests #18

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 27, 2019
Merged

Fix failing tests #18

merged 4 commits into from
Mar 27, 2019

Conversation

vincentsarago
Copy link
Contributor

Trying to fix failing tests #14
This pr does:

  • replace TestingDir with click integrated runner.isolated_filesystem
  • Fix some trailing bad crs inputs

@vincentsarago vincentsarago requested a review from dnomadb March 29, 2018 14:14
vincentsarago
vincentsarago commented Mar 29, 2018
View reviewed changes
test/test_mbtiler.py
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ def test_webp_writer():

test_bytearray = _encode_as_webp(test_data)

assert len(test_bytearray) == 42
assert len(test_bytearray) == 34
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@sgillies @dnomadb Not really sure why this changed!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't know. I took myself off the review list for this one because I gotta focus on something else and I haven't used this project yet.

@vincentsarago
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dnomadb @sgillies
There is still one failing test (comparison between created and expected tiff)

rio-rgbify/test/test_cli.py

Line 45 in 7650ba3

assert flex_compare(a, b)

raster-tester gives:

$ raster-tester compare expected.tif created.tif
ValueError: Band 3 has 4 pixels that vary by more than 16

not sure if we should just update the expected tif ???

@vincentsarago
Copy link
Contributor Author

ah, seems that tests are passing on travis but not locally 😶

@vincentsarago vincentsarago requested a review from sgillies March 29, 2018 14:30
@sgillies sgillies removed their request for review March 29, 2018 19:22
@vincentsarago vincentsarago removed their assignment Jun 1, 2018
@andrewharvey andrewharvey mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2019
Closed
@vincentsarago vincentsarago mentioned this pull request Mar 27, 2019
Open
@dnomadb dnomadb merged commit adfce80 into master Mar 27, 2019
@dnomadb dnomadb deleted the vincents-patch-2 branch March 27, 2019 13:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@sgillies sgillies sgillies left review comments

@dnomadb dnomadb Awaiting requested review from dnomadb

Assignees

@dnomadb dnomadb

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@vincentsarago @sgillies @dnomadb