Hi, On 27 September 2015 at 20:44, Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote:
> While I don't disagree that we should have conservative default settings, > this is one of those cases where I want to poke at people a bit to use our > test tools before submitting patches. > > Sorry, I have no excuse to have overlooked the tests with this change. > With this patch applied, unsurprisingly all the VPM-B plan tests now fail. > That's what those tests are supposed to track. > > So I'm not opposed to this patch. But it needs a companion patch that > updates the tests, please. > > 1 line companion patch attached. As the benchmarks use nominal (zero) conservatism, we should still use that for the tests, not update the tests to use +3 conservatism. Cheers, Rick
From 81935cf1de398be07574d207187349cb2ec26d30 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rick Walsh <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:23:13 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] TestPlan: Set VPM-B conservatism to zero The VPM-B benchmark results are all based on nominal/zero conservatism, so we should make sure we use zero conservatism in the tests. Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <[email protected]> --- tests/testplan.cpp | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/tests/testplan.cpp b/tests/testplan.cpp index c58bd39..9818a83 100644 --- a/tests/testplan.cpp +++ b/tests/testplan.cpp @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ void setupPrefsVpmb() prefs.descrate = 99000 / 60; prefs.last_stop = false; prefs.deco_mode = VPMB; + prefs.conservatism_level = 0; } void setupPlan(struct diveplan *dp) -- 2.4.3
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
