| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Make the variable purpose less ambiguous
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
A few more fixes for things that broke in commit 7be962bfc287 ("Move
subsurface-core to core and qt-mobile to mobile-widgets").
[Dirk Hohndel: slightly edited and overlap with Linus' patch removed]
Signed-off-by: Tomaz Canabrava <tomaz.canabrava@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
The purpose of testing against known Subsurface runtimes is to warn (when test
is run in verbose mode) if the runtime has altered. Before the next release, we
should update the known Subsurface runtimes to match current behaviour, so we
are alerted when we change something during the next release cycle.
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Commit 9d8b0ad introduces the copy_prefs function, and uses it to replace prefs
= default_prefs. We need to include subsurfacestartup.h for it to work in
testplan.cpp, otherwise TestPlan_build fails.
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
When just assigning one structure to the other we copy the string
pointers. If we then modify those strings in the copy, we happily free
the strings of the original. And then resetting the preferences equally
happily reused those strings, pointing to long since freed memory.
I think what I did now is excessive for the current use case in that it
copies a ton of strings that are unset in the default_prefs. But I figured
this is a rarely used function and I might as well do it correctly.
Also, once we implement multi user support with per user preferences we
will be copying completely populated preferences around (at least that's
my guess).
Fixes #940
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
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 <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
If variables were accidentally carried through from a previous calculated plan,
subsequent plan could be affected. This test aims to detect if this happens.
Commit 8994270 corrected such a bug. If it were reverted, this test would fail
(as it should).
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Robert C. Helling <helling@atdotde.de>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
... as the former was introduced only in Qt 5.5 in order to make the
test build also with 5.4
Signed-off-by: Robert C. Helling <helling@atdotde.de>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Fixing this error makes TestPlan pass again.
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
We should compare the calculated runtime against the runtime previously
calculated by Subsurface, expecting them to match exactly, in order to detect if
a change has been made. We still compare against a benchmark, allowing some
difference.
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
This is useful for determining why we calculate a difference profile
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Add more VPM-B planner tests. The "expected" total run time is taken as the
total run time produced by the Fortran VPM-B program. For all these tests, the
results are within two minutes, which is a good result, but most are classified
as a "fail".
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
This adds a test for 100 m for 60 min dive on trimix using VPM-B
Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <rickmwalsh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Robert C. Helling <helling@atdotde.de>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
With these values I reproduce the runtimes from the UI.
Signed-off-by: Robert C. Helling <helling@atdotde.de>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
|
This sets up a standard dive scenario (30 minutes at 260ft/79m, EAN36 and
Oxygen as deco gases, last stop at 20ft/6m) and calls the planner to set
up a dive plan given certain standard gases.
Instead of trying to verify the complete plans it checks that we switch to
the deco gases at the right depth and the complete duration of the dive
matches our expectation.
The test intentionally fails right now for imperial as we have the wrong
switch depth for Oxygen. See how useful tests are?
On the downside, the test does NOT produce the same plan as Subsurface
when I try to create a consistent setup for both - and I have not been
able to figure out why. There must be some other parameters that I'm not
setting, but I haven't identified them, yet. It's very small differences,
for example in the metric case the stops at 21m, 9m, and 6m are each one
minute shorter in the test than it what Subsurface calculates.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
|
Rick Walsh
Tomaz Canabrava
Dirk Hohndel
Robert C. Helling