Skip to content
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

Fix tests #348

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 11, 2023
Merged

Fix tests #348

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 11, 2023

Conversation

paulbovbel
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

This was referenced Nov 28, 2023
@@ -95,20 +95,20 @@ static void ExpectCostFunctionsAreEqual(const ceres::CostFunction& cost_function
EXPECT_TRUE(actual_cost_function.Evaluate(parameter_blocks.get(), actual_residuals.get(), nullptr));
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_residuals; ++i)
{
EXPECT_NEAR(residuals[i], actual_residuals[i], tolerance) << "residual id: " << i;
EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ(residuals[i], actual_residuals[i]) << "residual id: " << i;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ more tolerant than 1e-18?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yep - it knows what the underlying buckets of precision are for doubles

@paulbovbel paulbovbel merged commit 27423b0 into devel Dec 11, 2023
3 checks passed
@paulbovbel paulbovbel deleted the fix-test branch December 11, 2023 18:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants