Skip to content

TST: Update test images for new Ghostscript. #12366

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 3, 2018

Conversation

QuLogic
Copy link
Member

@QuLogic QuLogic commented Oct 2, 2018

PR Summary

These are created using 9.24; just trying to see if that's what will fix it. @jklymak says Travis is now on 9.25. If this works, we should probably add some tolerances for old versions.

PR Checklist

  • Has Pytest style unit tests
  • [N/A] Code is Flake 8 compliant
  • [N/A] New features are documented, with examples if plot related
  • [N/A] Documentation is sphinx and numpydoc compliant
  • [N/A] Added an entry to doc/users/next_whats_new/ if major new feature (follow instructions in README.rst there)
  • [N/A] Documented in doc/api/api_changes.rst if API changed in a backward-incompatible way

@QuLogic
Copy link
Member Author

QuLogic commented Oct 2, 2018

OK, even though I replaced the image, test_boxplot[pdf] is still failing. It also fails locally too.

I also don't understand why hatch_simplify seems to have gotten thicker lines but this never failed before.

@QuLogic
Copy link
Member Author

QuLogic commented Oct 2, 2018

So hatch_simplify.pdf hasn't been changed since 2015, but in fact it should have changed with #6198 which unified the width of hatch lines across formats. Due to buggy Ghostscript I guess, this was never done.

@QuLogic QuLogic force-pushed the update-images branch 2 times, most recently from f98eb5e to 0b34cb7 Compare October 2, 2018 08:26
Copy link
Member

@jklymak jklymak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems ready to go - should it still be WIP?

@QuLogic
Copy link
Member Author

QuLogic commented Oct 2, 2018

Possibly. Can someone who has an older ghostscript try it out to see if we need any higher tolerances for them?

@QuLogic QuLogic added this to the v3.0.x milestone Oct 3, 2018
@QuLogic
Copy link
Member Author

QuLogic commented Oct 3, 2018

In the interest of getting CI working, I'm going to merge this. If anyone has any problems, please open a PR with increased tolerance.

@QuLogic QuLogic merged commit 46ba49a into matplotlib:master Oct 3, 2018
@QuLogic QuLogic deleted the update-images branch October 3, 2018 08:17
meeseeksmachine pushed a commit to meeseeksmachine/matplotlib that referenced this pull request Oct 3, 2018
@timhoffm
Copy link
Member

timhoffm commented Oct 3, 2018

FYI: This works with ghostscript 9.19.

@QuLogic
Copy link
Member Author

QuLogic commented Oct 3, 2018

Ah, good to know.

dstansby added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 3, 2018
…366-on-v3.0.x

Backport PR #12366 on branch v3.0.x (TST: Update test images for new Ghostscript.)
@jklymak
Copy link
Member

jklymak commented Oct 5, 2018

@meeseeksdev backport to v3.0.0-doc

meeseeksmachine pushed a commit to meeseeksmachine/matplotlib that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2018
jklymak added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2018
…366-on-v3.0.0-doc

Backport PR #12366 on branch v3.0.0-doc (TST: Update test images for new Ghostscript.)
@QuLogic
Copy link
Member Author

QuLogic commented Oct 12, 2018

@meeseeksdev backport to v2.2.x

@QuLogic QuLogic modified the milestones: v3.0.x, v2.2.4 Oct 12, 2018
meeseeksmachine pushed a commit to meeseeksmachine/matplotlib that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2018
QuLogic added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 13, 2018
…366-on-v2.2.x

Backport PR #12366 on branch v2.2.x (TST: Update test images for new Ghostscript.)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants