Re: [lmi] Anomalies indicated by 'rate_table_tool'

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 21:35:33 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> Vadim--I'm not sure which is anomalous, the table or the data, but
GC> please try this test case...
GC> 
GC> $wget download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/lmi/lmi-data-20050618T1440Z.tar.bz2
GC> $tar -xjvf lmi-data-20050618T1440Z.tar.bz2
GC> $wine /opt/lmi/bin/rate_table_tool.exe -a --verify --file=data/sample       
   
GC> 
GC> Observed output:
GC> 
GC> 
---------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<-------
GC> Table #2 specifies 7 decimals, but 8 were necessary.
GC> This flaw has been corrected, and the CRC recalculated.
GC> [rate_table.cpp : 1865]
GC> 
GC> Table #3 specifies 7 decimals, but 8 were necessary.
GC> This flaw has been corrected, and the CRC recalculated.
GC> [rate_table.cpp : 1865]
GC> 
GC> Table #6 specifies 7 decimals, but 6 were necessary.
GC> This flaw has been corrected, and the CRC recalculated.
GC> [rate_table.cpp : 1865]
GC> 
GC> Table #8 specifies 5 decimals, but 2 were necessary.
GC> This flaw has been corrected, and the CRC recalculated.
GC> [rate_table.cpp : 1865]
GC> 
GC> Table #10 specifies 8 decimals, but 17 were necessary.
GC> This flaw has been corrected, and the CRC recalculated.
GC> [rate_table.cpp : 1865]
GC> 
GC> Verification failed for table #10: After loading and saving the original 
table 
GC> binary contents differed.
GC> 
GC> [rate_table_tool.cpp : 361]
GC> 
--------->8-------->8-------->8-------->8-------->8-------->8-------->8-------

 I can already confirm that I see exactly the same thing, even when running
under a "genuine MSW" system and with the binary built with (genuine?) MSVS.

GC> I'm not too worried about:
GC>   Table #10 specifies 8 decimals, but 17 were necessary.
GC> because decimals here are more like children than phalanges in that
GC> you don't really need seventeen of them.

 I'll have to ponder that one...

GC> But the other tables look okay to me.

 I didn't look at the tables yet, but the logical conclusion is that it's
the tool itself which must be buggy, right? If so, I guess I should debug
these errors and I'll do it a.s.a.p., although probably not today and, if
you could confirm that this is not too urgent, maybe even on Monday.

 Best regards,
VZ