Rob Atkinson ha scritto: > One could create a index page of output artefacts, for a quick visual > scan. The human brain is pretty good. If this index page included static > "expected" samples it would be pretty quick to eyeball.
Hum... one of the major features we want out of a build is to be headless and automated, so a visual comparison would have to be dumped on some file for human evaluation, which is not going to be automatic. Yet, the visual comparison could be included in the release producers making sure we don't have busted releases like 2.4.3. > If one also filtered out pixel-identical images it might be a relatively > small and simple sanity check to do. > any "picture closeness" measures could be used in conjunction, and even > a pixel-diff mask created by someone in future - this would be an easy > place for (SoC?) people to play and add capability. Soc is already gone, we'd have to wait for next year. As a quick measure of distance, we could do the following. For each pixel, extract the R G B A components, make a difference, component by component, against the expected value, and sum up the absolute values of it. If the total sum on all the pixels exceeds a certain soil, fail the test, and present a visual exemplar of the comparison. On failures that do not represent a real issue, we can just relax the soil accordingly. What other people think of such approach? Cheers Andrea ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
