[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [help-GIFT] address@hidden: Re: Testing GIFT-modifications]

From: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [help-GIFT] address@hidden: Re: Testing GIFT-modifications]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:32:59 +0200

Hi there, thanks for your activity. I am still behind 56k, and yesterday I 
could not even reach my lab for some networking problem in between --> replies 
are sluggish.

Just a quick comment: I do not think testing the query engine via a c++ program 
is a good idea. I think the right idea is to write a perl script that uses the 
MRML socket based interface. As a glue language I think the perl would also be 
suited for running the test in itself, ie getting the images, unpacking them, 
indexing them, firing off the query engine, querying it and checking the 

Any takers? If it has not become clear, I have changed CVS policy one week ago 
:-), if you want access and you're reasonably known to me :-), just drop me a 
mail. I think announcing changes to the list and waiting for complaints seems a 
good idea, even more so when a testing framework is in place.


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: address@hidden
Date:  Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:49:59 -0500

>Another Gift Hacker. We need more. ;)
>I'm just modifying the feature extraction program, so I have a small 
>shell script that runs the extractor from upstream, and then diffs
>that against the result of 'my' extractor, 40 or so times.
>Just to be safe. :)
>It then takes the time of the runs, and evens them out, so I know
>how much performance I've gained.
>Available Upon Request.
>Other than that, I don't verify the 'querying' part of the engine
>at all. Its written in C++, and i am not a C++ programmer (yet..).
>I've religiously avoided C++, as I've seen too many college grads
>who think the whole world fits their object model, and who write
>*HORRIBLE* performing applications. to say nothing of how they look.
>I justify it to myself by knowing I've got leaps and bounds of
>improvements to add to the C feature extractor.
>After todays commit, CVS should run at 1.42 on my machine,
>VS 0.1.14 running at 1.9, and my 'private' branch running at .85!
>I'm tired of spending hours waiting on my images to import, how 
>about you? ;)
>Hope this helps! Feel free to ask for more details!
>Julia Longtin <address@hidden>
>On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 08:13:32AM +0200, Jonas Lindqvist wrote:
>> Hi Julia!
>> I'm writing to you directly instead of to the help-gift list, since  
>> I'm not sure "everyone" is interested...
>> I have understood that you are modifying the code to gain  
>> performance, right? (I must admit I AM curious to what your  
>> approaches are, but that's not what I'm writing for...)
>> I myself would like to clean up the code to gain robustness, but I  
>> need to find a good way of making sure I haven't broken anything in  
>> the process.
>> How do you verify that all the vital functions are still in working  
>> order after you modify them?
>> Are there any automated testing procedures available, written by you  
>> or by others? (a "make test" Makefile target would be nice...)
>> Or is there a list of tests that should be verified after each  
>> modification?
>> Wolfgang suggested I'd test "feature extracting and querying", but  
>> that's a bit too fuzzy for me. I might miss something important by  
>> just testing random stuff.
>> Regards,
>> Jonas Lindqvist
>----- End forwarded message -----
>help-GIFT mailing list


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]