Eye rotation doesn't work with inherited colors

[mustanggb]

Fixes #105.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #106 (5549ad5) into master (5c2d190) will increase coverage by 2.07%. The diff coverage is 80.26%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #106      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     63.42%   65.49%   +2.07%     
- Complexity      928      939      +11     
============================================
  Files            47       48       +1     
  Lines          2783     2855      +72     
============================================
+ Hits           1765     1870     +105     
+ Misses         1018      985      -33     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/Renderer/Path/Curve.php	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/Renderer/ImageRenderer.php	91.52% <50.00%> (-3.03%)	:arrow_down:
src/Renderer/Eye/GridEye.php	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/Renderer/Path/Close.php	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/Renderer/Path/EllipticArc.php	34.67% <100.00%> (+34.67%)	:arrow_up:
src/Renderer/Path/Line.php	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/Renderer/Path/Move.php	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/Renderer/Path/Path.php	89.18% <100.00%> (+14.18%)	:arrow_up:
src/Renderer/RendererStyle/Fill.php	82.92% <0.00%> (+4.87%)	:arrow_up:
src/Renderer/Image/ImagickImageBackEnd.php	69.03% <0.00%> (+5.80%)	:arrow_up:
... and 2 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 5c2d190...5549ad5. Read the comment docs.

[mustanggb]

If you want a test is it okay to add my non-symmetrical eye interface to the codebase?

[mustanggb]

No idea why the test is failing, is there anyway to see the file generated by the CI?

[mustanggb]

Okay, figured it out.

The code was fine and the files were identical to the human eye.

Just slight differences probably due to imagick version differences between my system and the test platform.

So I extracted the files from a workflow artifact and now the tests pass.

[DASPRiD]

An alternative would be to test with the SVG renderer, since that output is predictable.

[mustanggb]

Yup, definitely a safer option, but perhaps better as a follow-up to update all the integration tests.

[mustanggb]

@DASPRiD Any feedback, or things you'd like addressed?

[DASPRiD]

Generally this looks good to me. I'm not sure about the GridEye naming, that's not very descriptive for what it actually is. I cannot think of a better term from the top of my head right now though.

[DASPRiD]

How about you rename it to PointyEye, I think that might be more descriptive. Apart from that, the PR looks good to me.

[DASPRiD]

@mustanggb I haven't heard back from you ever. I'm currently preparing a new major release. If I don't hear back from you in the next few days, I'm going to close this PR.

[mustanggb]

Heard back about what?

I was just waiting for it to be merged.

[DASPRiD]

@mustanggb See my comments from March 14 and 27, 2022 :)

[DASPRiD]

Also, please rebase against the new main branch.

[mustanggb]

Just a rename then, I don't mind it.

Rename and rebase at #174.