New check: mandatory name IDs (that are not names) in GF fonts

[RosaWagner]

What needs to be checked?

Any fonts checked with GF profile must contain these name IDs:

• [ ] ID 0: Copyright string (#3950)
• [ ] ID 9: author's name
• [ ] ID 13: License description
• [ ] ID 14: License URL

I think we don't care so much about Manufacturer's name, Manufacturer's URL and Designer's URL, but will confirm.

Detailed description of the problem

Fontbakery fails those correctly when they are empty, but not missing. I didn't include font versioning (name ID5) cause already checked when emtpy and missing.

This error occurs when testing a font removing these name IDs:

💔 ERROR: Check font names are correct (com.google.fonts/check/font_names) 💔 ERROR The condition fontbakerycondition:expected_font_names had an error: TypeError: expected unicode or bytes, found NoneType: None

Optional fix

Glyphs3 offers the possibility to export fonts without these name IDs, they have to be added manually when starting a new font project.

Resources and exact process needed to replicate

I made this font to test that: Missing-Name-IDs-Font.zip

Expected Profile

Please suggest in which profile should it be included. (You could inspect the Profiles's list at https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/stable/fontbakery/profiles/index.html). Most common are:

• [x] Vendor-specific: Google Fonts
• [ ] Vendor-specific: Adobe Fonts
• [ ] OpenType (requirements imposed by the OpenType specification)
• [ ] Universal (broadly accepted best practices on the type design community)
• [ ] Other:

Expected Result

Which log result level should it have:

• [x] 🔥 FAIL (Something that must be addressed for the propper functioning of the font)
• [ ] ⚠️ WARN (Highlights potential issues that are suggested to address)

Severity assessment

5

[RosaWagner]

oops pressed wrong button, editing now

[felipesanches]

The code that is crashing is actually part of the axisregistry module. That's the build_static_name_table method.

[m4rc1e]

I’ll check this out on Monday.

[simoncozens]

Which Monday? ;-)

[felipesanches]

Sorry about my laughing. I also sometimes do similar things :-P

[felipesanches]

But in this issue, I can see that I actually implemented the check requested by Rosalie:

And the issue is probably not yet closed just because the check was placed on a "proposals" profile. Nowadays I consider that a mistake. I will delete the proposals profile, which was a bad idea, and add the check directly to Google Fonts profile, marked as EXPERIMENTAL.