Test OcdFileImport::fillPathCoords#2270
Conversation
Move expected data closer to input data. Format data more readable. Avoid redundant passing of element counts. Test path coord processing both for areas and lines.
|
|
||
| void FileFormatTest::ocdPathImportTest_data() | ||
| { | ||
| #define C(x) ((int)((unsigned int)(x)<<8)) // FIXME: Not the same as in export |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As long as we don't check the actual x/y values, it doesn't need action.
| void FileFormatTest::ocdPathImportTest_data() | ||
| { | ||
| #define C(x) ((int)((unsigned int)(x)<<8)) // FIXME: Not the same as in export | ||
| constexpr auto ocd_flag_gap = 8; // TODO: implement as Ocd::OcdPoint32::FlagGap |
|
|
||
| TestOcdFileImport::OcdImportedPathObject path_object; | ||
| ocd_v12_import.fillPathCoords(&path_object, personality == Area, points.size, points.data); | ||
| QVERIFY(path_object.getRawCoordinateVector().size() > 0); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a time when OcdPointsView and FlagsView returned empty views, turning the test into a no-op. I prefer to leave it in.
|
Ping @dl3sdo. This has a more direct impact on what can be merged next. |
|
@dg0yt: Just to understand it right: this unit test is intentionally designed for the 'old' behaviour, i.e. merging #2224 would require an update of this unit test. passes and should not pass after #2224. |
|
Kai: this unit test is excellent: it's understandable, easily extensible and it documents the mapping of .ocd coords and attributes to Mapper's coords and attributes. Thank you for the effort you spent on it! I added another test case but cannot push to your branch, please pick it from ab12494 |
Yes, for the moment. It is sort-of a documentation of what is implemented now. |
The test case contains an Ocd::OcdPoint32::FlagDash property which was yet untested as well as a combination of bezier and straight line segments. The area itself contains a hole which itself contains a hole.
Co-authored-by: Matthias Kuehlewein <github@kuehlewein.de>
2 participants
Extended version of the proposed test, #2224 (comment)