Open ghost opened 9 years ago
Even worse, there doesn't even need to be another variable in the actual.csv file, i.e.:
time;a;c
0;1;3
1;2;4
2;3;5
3;4;6
4;5;7
Lists variable b as 100%.
What is the expected behavior? Should actual.b always fail or simply be ignored?
I would expect it to be a failure since the actual result isn't like the expected/base result.
Can you please check if 9c0a0aa fixes the problem as you would expect! Thanks.
Unfortunately I currently haven't any software setup for compiling csv-compare on my own but looking from the changeset it looks correct, you changed the warning into an error and also changed the graph. But I can't say for sure until the above tests has been tried.
Thanks!
@jonsten Can you please check if 209c607641b8dfb311bba75234328363bafa3898 fixes the problem as you would expect! Thanks.
@tbeu, unfortunately I'm no longer working with this product/project as I've left the company that was using this product... @JohanYli as far as I know you are still interested in this, care to take a look or forward to those that needed this?
CSV Compare does not skip variables which aren't present in both csv files in some cases. For example the following base.csv:
and actual.csv:
Note that b exists in base.csv but not in actual.csv, and x is missing from base.csv but exists in actual.csv. In the generated report the variable b is listed with a 100% success rate. This is a rather severe bug since the user get the impression that everything is fine and the variable produces the correct result! It does however leave a warning in the log, saying that b has been skipped (which it apparently haven't). Log:
Command used:
Version: