[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #59022] [octave forge] (image) test failures in blockproc.m under Octave 6.0.90

[Hartmut]

URL:
  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59022>

                 Summary: [octave forge] (image) test failures in blockproc.m
under Octave 6.0.90
                 Project: GNU Octave
            Submitted by: hardy
            Submitted on: Thu 27 Aug 2020 08:41:36 PM UTC
                Category: Octave Forge Package
                Severity: 3 - Normal
                Priority: 5 - Normal
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
             Assigned to: None
         Originator Name: 
        Originator Email: 
             Open/Closed: Open
                 Release: 6.0.90
         Discussion Lock: Any
        Operating System: GNU/Linux

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

I have compiled the new Octave release candidate 6.0.90 under (Ubuntu) linux.
(All tests passed there). I then de-installed and re-installed the image
package (current release 2.12.0) under this Octave 6.0.90 and run the test
suite of the image package as well.

One function of the image package gives me 10 FAILs: blockproc.m. (I have not
observed any other test failures.)

Here is the output from fntest:

>>>>> processing /home/hartmut/octave/image-2.12.0/blockproc.m
*****
assert(blockproc(eye(6),[2,2],"sum"),blockproc(eye(6),[2,2],inline("sum(x)","x")));
!!!!! test failed
blockproc: invalid fun parameter.
***** assert(blockproc(eye(6),[2,2],inline("any(x(:))","x")),eye(3)!=0);
!!!!! test failed
blockproc: invalid fun parameter.
*****
assert(blockproc(eye(6),[1,2],[1,1],inline("sum(x(:))","x")),[2,1,0;3,2,0;2,3,1;1,3,2;0,2,3;0,1,2]);
!!!!! test failed
blockproc: invalid fun parameter.
*****
assert(blockproc(eye(6),'indexed',[1,2],[1,1],inline("sum(x(:))","x")),[8,5,6;6,2,3;5,3,4;4,3,5;3,2,6;6,5,8]);
!!!!! test failed
blockproc: invalid fun parameter.
*****
assert(blockproc(eye(6),[2,3],[4,3],inline("sum(x(:))","x")),ones(3,2)*6);
!!!!! test failed
blockproc: invalid fun parameter.
*****
assert(blockproc(eye(6),[2,2],inline("int8(sum(x(:)))","x")),eye(3,"int8")*2);
!!!!! test failed
blockproc: invalid fun parameter.
*****
assert(blockproc(uint8(eye(6)),[1,2],[1,1],inline("sum(x(:))","x")),[2,1,0;3,2,0;2,3,1;1,3,2;0,2,3;0,1,2]);
!!!!! test failed
blockproc: invalid fun parameter.
*****
assert(blockproc(uint8(eye(6)),'indexed',[1,2],[1,1],inline("sum(x(:))","x")),[2,1,0;3,2,0;2,3,1;1,3,2;0,2,3;0,1,2]);
!!!!! test failed
blockproc: invalid fun parameter.
*****
assert(blockproc(uint16(eye(6)),[1,2],[1,1],inline("sum(x(:))","x")),[2,1,0;3,2,0;2,3,1;1,3,2;0,2,3;0,1,2]);
!!!!! test failed
blockproc: invalid fun parameter.
*****
assert(blockproc(uint16(eye(6)),'indexed',[1,2],[1,1],inline("sum(x(:))","x")),[2,1,0;3,2,0;2,3,1;1,3,2;0,2,3;0,1,2]);
!!!!! test failed
blockproc: invalid fun parameter.


It seems to me that something has changed in Octave 6 that we have missed
before. Is this because of the "inline" function definition, or because of
something else?




    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59022>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/