Your message dated Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:10:54 +0100 (CET)
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#839992: libmath-quaternion-perl: autopkgtest failure:
not ok 48 - rotation_angle works
has caused the Debian Bug report #839992,
regarding libmath-quaternion-perl: FTBFS randomly (not ok 48 - rotation_angle
works)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
839992: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839992
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libmath-quaternion-perl
Version: 0.07-1
User: [email protected]
Usertags: autopkgtest
This package recently failed its autopkgtest checks on ci.debian.net.
https://ci.debian.net/packages/libm/libmath-quaternion-perl/unstable/amd64/
not ok 48 - rotation_angle works
# Failed test 'rotation_angle works'
# at t/001_basic.t line 357.
ok 49 - Math::Quaternion->new(\%hash) does not fail
ok 50 - Math::Quaternion->new(\%hash) produces correct rotation
ok 51 - Math::Quaternion::rotation(rubbish) fails
ok 52 - Math::Quaternion::rotation(much rubbish) fails
ok 53 - Math::Quaternion::rotation($theta,\@vec) works
ok 54 - Math::Quaternion::rotation(\@vec,$theta) works
not ok 55 - rotation_axis works
# Failed test 'rotation_axis works'
# at t/001_basic.t line 378.
[...]
Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/001_basic.t (Wstat: 512 Tests: 83 Failed: 2)
Failed tests: 48, 55
Non-zero exit status: 2
It works for me on current sid. This is probably [rt.cpan.org #93159]:
the test suite has random inputs which sometimes cause failures.
--
Niko Tyni [email protected]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 0.07-2
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, gregor herrmann wrote:
> So I guess your argument is that reducing the likelihood of test
> failures makes sense even if we don't catch all? -- I have to say
> that I can agree with this point :)
Yes, exactly. The less it fails, always the better.
Version 0.07-2 migrated to testing, I built it 100 times, and it
failed none. So the "1 failure in 50 tries on average" seems to be gone.
The other potential failure you mention, namely, that $theta may be zero here:
353: my $theta = rand(0.25*$pi);
has a probability so low (1 in 10^9 maybe?) that for practical purposes
I prefer to consider this bug as fixed.
Thanks a lot.
--- End Message ---
