Back to the main page.
Bug 2237 - rollback_provenance: fails when data structure lacks a cfg-field that is a structure
| Status | CLOSED FIXED |
| Reported | 2013-08-08 21:34:00 +0200 |
| Modified | 2014-01-29 13:28:39 +0100 |
| Product: | FieldTrip |
| Component: | core |
| Version: | unspecified |
| Hardware: | PC |
| Operating System: | Mac OS |
| Importance: | P3 normal |
| Assigned to: | Eelke Spaak |
| URL: | |
| Tags: | |
| Depends on: | |
| Blocks: | |
| See also: |
Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2013-08-08 21:34:45 +0200
I am looking into some failing test functions on the dashboard at the moment. For some of the test functions we create some dummy data structures, that typically don't contain a cfg-field. I encountered now 2 situations where the test function fails because rollback_provenance expects 1) a cfg-field to be always present 2) the cfg-field to be a structure (or perhaps config object is allowed, I don't know for sure). Question: should we catch this in rollback_provenance? or do we expect all data structures to have a cfg-field (as a struct)?
Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2013-08-08 21:38:12 +0200
PS: an example is test_bug2222, where I added freqX.cfg = struct([]);
Eelke Spaak - 2013-08-09 09:19:57 +0200
I think rollback_provenance should fail gracefully (i.e. do nothing) when there is no cfg field in the data. Making a cfg field required is pretty darn ugly.
Eelke Spaak - 2013-08-21 14:29:20 +0200
fixed in r8407