[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Orekit Users] Test failure


I see you are affiliated with SUNY Buffalo.  Do you know John Crassidis?  Say hello if you do.  He's a friend of mine.


On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Cefola, Paul <paulcefo@buffalo.edu> wrote:

The Intel NUC computer here is a Windows 10 machine.  Orekit, GTDS, and DSST Standalone run in a Cygwin64 terminal which gives a linux-like environment.


Dr. Paul J. Cefola
Consultant in Aerospace Systems, Spaceflight Mechanics, & Astrodynamics
Research Scientist,  Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo (SUNY)

4 Moonstone Way
Vineyard Haven, MA 02568

508-696-1884 (home)
978-201-1393 (mobile)


From: orekit-users-request@orekit.org <orekit-users-request@orekit.org> on behalf of MAISONOBE Luc <luc.maisonobe@c-s.fr>
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 12:10 PM
To: orekit-users@orekit.org
Subject: Re: [Orekit Users] Test failure

Walter Grossman <w.grossman@ieee.org> a écrit :

> Thanks for prompt response.  I will do my best.  Let me also add that there
> was a warning that 2 tests were skipped.

The skipped tests are expected, they correspond to one of the class
considered experimental as of 9.2.

> I cloned the repository using git.  the jar is orekit-9.2.jar
> Intel® Core™ i5-3320M CPU @ 2.60GHz × 4
> Intel® Ivybridge Mobile
> 64-bit
> openjdk version "1.8.0_171"
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_171-8u171-b11-0ubuntu0.16.04.1-b11)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.171-b11, mixed mode)
> Maybe I should switch to Oracle Java?

No, most of the Orekit developers use Linux and openJDK.

I'll have a quick look at this, but this may be a numerical glitch. Increasing
the tolerance seems fine to me.

best regards,

> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:54 AM, MAISONOBE Luc <luc.maisonobe@c-s.fr> wrote:
>> Hi Walter,
>> Walter Grossman <w.grossman@ieee.org> a écrit :
>> I am a newbie to OREkit.  I ran tests and go a "near-miss" failure.  I
>>> resolved by relaxing precision.  How do I know if I am OK?
>>> OrbitDeterminationTest.testW3B:384 expected:<0.687998> but
>>> was:<0.6880143632396981>
>>> found this line:  Assert.assertEquals(0.687998, covariances.getEntry(6,
>>> 6),
>>> 1.0e-5);
>>> Is the problem that acceptance criterion too tight?  Why?
>> The test tolerance is intentionally extremely small, see below
>> for the rationale for this stringent choice. The test should however
>> succeed with the current settings. Could you tell us which version
>> of Orekit you use (development version from the git repository, released
>> version?) and with which Java environment (OS, JVM version, processor)?
>> Some tests in Orekit are built in several stages. First the test is
>> created without any thresholds and only output its results, which are
>> compared by the developer with whatever is available to get confidence
>> on the results. This may be run of other reference programs if available,
>> this may be another independent implementation using different algorithms,
>> or this may be sensitivity analysis with the program under test itself.
>> This
>> validation phase may be quite long. Once developers are convinced the
>> implementation
>> is good, they run the test one last time and register its output as the
>> reference values with a stringent threshold in order to transform the
>> nature
>> of the test into a non-regression test. The threshold is therefore not an
>> indication that the results are very good, it is only a way for us to
>> ensure
>> that any change in the code that affects this part will break the test and
>> will enforce developers to look again at this code and to decide what to
>> do.
>> They can decide that the changes that broke the test are valid and that
>> they
>> only changed the results in an acceptable way (sometimes to improve the
>> results),
>> so they change either the reference value or the threshold. They can
>> decide that
>> the changes in fact triggered something unexpected and that they should
>> improve
>> their new code so the test pass again without changing it. So as a summary
>> thresholds for non-regression tests are small to act as a fuse and people
>> notice
>> when it blows up and can take decisions.
>> best regards,
>> Luc