You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Unit testing the numbers dictionary has revealed some issues even though the base functionality works as expected.
First, reverse_lookup sort-of worked but does not handle cases where the numbers are split with - or reversed with * properly. This may be a lost cause as at the moment it seems like it'd take significant effort to resolve.
Secondly, lookup is quite permissive of input. If you give it 1258 instead of 125-8, 1290 instead of 12-90, etc. it works fine even though that violates how the steno order is supposed to be written.
Thirdly, You can't unit test reverse_lookup code that has a return value (so, a "passing" case) because when it calls normalize_stroke it errors out due to a raised AssertionError because a "system" has not been initialized in the plover package which it's using during normalize_steno internally for things like NUMBER_KEY lookups and such.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Unit testing the numbers dictionary has revealed some issues even though the base functionality works as expected.
First, reverse_lookup sort-of worked but does not handle cases where the numbers are split with - or reversed with * properly. This may be a lost cause as at the moment it seems like it'd take significant effort to resolve.
Secondly, lookup is quite permissive of input. If you give it
1258
instead of125-8
,1290
instead of12-90
, etc. it works fine even though that violates how the steno order is supposed to be written.Thirdly, You can't unit test reverse_lookup code that has a return value (so, a "passing" case) because when it calls normalize_stroke it errors out due to a raised AssertionError because a "system" has not been initialized in the plover package which it's using during normalize_steno internally for things like NUMBER_KEY lookups and such.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: