Gitc 6903 Adding Unit Test Suite #83

ozzp · 2025-09-09T05:39:32Z

Summary

This pull request consists of unit test suite to validate MRF utilities functionality and prevent future regressions. The tests are designed to be run in a self-contained Docker environment.

Tests identified potential bugs that need to be reviewed:

-   `mrf_join.py`: Need to correct `TypeError` by updating the `getmrfinfo` function signature.
-   `mrf_size.py`: GeoTransform calculation is incorrect and there might be a bug that prevents multi-band VRT generation.
-   `tiles2mrf.py`: Python 3 division error (`/` vs `//`) that caused the script to crash.
-   `jxl.cpp`: Need to add check to prevent an `Invalid quant_val` error when processing certain JPEGs.

New Unit Test Suite:
- Added test suite using Python's unittest framework for all C++ and Python utilities.
- Created a Docker-based testing environment
- Updated documentation to include instructions for building the Docker image and running the tests.

How to Test

The new test suite can be verified by following the instructions in the updated "MRF Utilities Test Suite" documentation.

Build the Docker image: docker build -t mrf-test-suite .
Run the tests: docker run --rm mrf-test-suite

jtroberts

I recommend not putting any files at the repository top level if they are only used for the test suite. I would move them into a test/ directory.

jtroberts

We should have more reviewers examine the test cases.

jtroberts · 2025-09-10T01:38:00Z

mrf_apps/Makefile

 # GDAL_ROOT=$(PREFIX)/src/gdal/gdal
 #
-include Makefile.lcl
+include ../Makefile.lcl


Is this referencing the makefile for the MRF test suite build? That doesn't make sense to me.

No, Makefile.lcl does not have any test suite build dependencies. It's a better place for it to be at project root location.

jtroberts · 2025-09-10T01:40:24Z

doc/Test Suite/TEST_JOIN.md

I would move this into the test directory rather than doc/Test Suite and not name with all caps.

Moved to test directory. Thanks!

doc/Test Suite/TEST_MRF_INSERT.md

jtroberts · 2025-09-10T01:43:36Z

tests/test_mrf_size.py

+
+    def test_vrt_default_pagesize(self):
+        """Test that a default PageSize of 512 is used when the tag is absent."""
+        # ARRANGE: Create a 1024x1024 MRF without a <PageSize> tag


Not sure why 1024 is used here when we're testing the default of 512.

This test is confirming that missing tag, results in mrf_size.py assuming default of 512x512 for all calculations. To validate, test creates 1024x1024 raster. VRT file generated with dimensions based on number of tiles fit into raster. The script calculates widthxheight of 2x2 tiles, and asserts that output VRT has dimensions of 2x2. The script would fail if default is not 512.

Is that really how it works? My understanding is that rasterXSize and rasterYSize is the output size of the virtual raster in pixels, not the tile dimensions.

That's what mrf_size does, it generates a raster where each pixel corresponds to a input tile, with the pixel value being the size of the matching tile. A 1024x1024 MRF with a tile of 512x512 will generate a 2x2 pixel raster output.

I haven't used this in a long time, it's a neat tool to visually identify issues in a very large MRF. The output is graphic, georeferenced and can be vied in any GIS.

Ah, interesting. That makes more sense now. I haven't tried the tool before but do see where it can be useful.

jackiryan

I attempted to build the test image with docker build -t mrf-test-suite . and docker build --platform linux/amd64 -t mrf-test-suite . and both fail. For the first command, I get the following error:

ERROR: failed to build: failed to solve: process "/bin/sh -c wget -P /tmp/ https://github.com/nasa-gibs/gibs-gdal/releases/download/v${GDAL_VERSION}-${GIBS_GDAL_RELEASE}/gibs-gdal-${GDAL_VERSION}-${GIBS_GDAL_RELEASE}.el${ALMALINUX_VERSION}.x86_64.rpm &&     dnf install -y /tmp/gibs-gdal-${GDAL_VERSION}-${GIBS_GDAL_RELEASE}.el${ALMALINUX_VERSION}.x86_64.rpm &&     rm -rf /tmp/*" did not complete successfully: exit code: 1

Investigating the log, I see the following:

Problem: conflicting requests
- package gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline does not have a compatible architecture
- nothing provides libbrunslidec-c.so()(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libbrunslienc-c.so()(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libgdal.so.32()(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.11)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.6)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
- nothing provides libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) needed by gdal-3.6.4-3.el10.x86_64 from @commandline
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)

I am on an M4 mac system, please investigate issues with the dockerfile before merging.

…ilities in mrf_apps

jtroberts · 2025-09-16T17:40:53Z

mrf_apps/mrf_size.py

    gt[1] *= mrf.pagesize.x
    gt[5] *= mrf.pagesize.y
    XML.SubElement(root,'GeoTransform').text = ",".join((str(x) for x in gt))
-    bands = int(mrf.size.c / mrf.pagesize.c)


Not sure if this should be modified.

Right, it was correct before. The output is a "tile size" image. When the input is pixel interleaved, there is only one tile per location, so the output has only one band. It's not the same thing as the number of input bands.

jtroberts · 2025-09-18T01:48:40Z

Dockerfile

+# Stage 1: Install all development tools, compile the C++ utilities,
+# and create the Python virtual environment.
+# =====================================================================
+FROM almalinux:9 AS builder


Why not almalinux:10 ?

grabermtw · 2025-09-18T20:40:14Z

MRF_Utilities_Test_Suite.md

+Finally, run the tests using the `mrf-test-suite` image. This command starts a container, executes `pytest`, and automatically removes the container (`--rm`) when finished.
+
+```bash
+docker run --rm mrf-test-suite


Since we have tests that might be skipped (and test_jxl_bundle_mode that's currently guaranteed to be skipped), it might be useful to list the run command here as

docker run --rm mrf-test-suite pytest -rs

so that the user is given reasons if the tests are skipped. Without the pytest -rs, only the number of skipped tests will be reported, with no clear indication of which tests were skipped or why.

jackiryan · 2025-09-23T18:27:57Z

I know you told me to wait until later in the week, but I tried anyways and I was able to successfully build the test image now. When I run the docker run command, I get no output, not sure if that's expected. However when I run the command that Matt suggested I get this:

docker run --platform linux/amd64 --rm mrf-test-suite pytest -rs
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.9.21, pytest-8.4.2, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /app
configfile: pyproject.toml
collected 0 items

============================ no tests ran in 0.00s =============================

ozzp · 2025-09-23T19:00:16Z

Jackie, to confirm: you build both mrf-app and mrf-test-suite?

jackiryan · 2025-09-23T20:01:52Z

Thanks for the clarification, I built the mrf-app image then the test image and successfully ran the tests. I just failed to read the documentation MRF_Utilities_Test_Suite.md carefully

ozzp · 2025-09-23T20:52:41Z

Great, thanks for testing Jackie! I'll proceed with upgrading images to AlmaLinux 10.

ozzp and others added 22 commits August 21, 2025 16:34

GITC-6903 unit tests

39d0339

GITC-6903 unit tests infrastructure

051a2ff

GITC-6903 unit tests mrf insert update

d043117

Update test_mrf_insert.py

be23bb0

Update test_join.py

b0c639c

Create test_join.md

563893c

Update test_join.md

ac9c7da

Create TEST_MRF_INSERT.md

079c55b

Rename test_join.md to TEST_JOIN.md

44173dd

Create test_jxl.py

00d0bc5

Create test_tiles2mrf.py

0959b0b

Create test_mrf_size.py

2058e5a

Create test_read_data.py

1713a31

Create test_read_idx.py

c48c73c

Update MRF_UTILITIES_TEST_SUITE.md

6b0c6a8

Update MRF_UTILITIES_TEST_SUITE.md

d9cbaee

Create Makefile.lcl

e7c4790

Update requirements.txt

8e23bda

Update test_join.py

1e88381

Update test_jxl.py

c71a647

Update test_read_data.py

efbbfc7

Update test_read_idx.py

7bc3925

jtroberts reviewed Sep 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

jtroberts requested review from lucianpls, grabermtw and jackiryan September 10, 2025 01:51

jackiryan requested changes Sep 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

ozzp added 2 commits September 11, 2025 12:18

Rename TEST_JOIN.md to test_join.md

3934232

Rename TEST_MRF_INSERT.md to test_mrf_insert.md

d8a83bc

ozzp and others added 12 commits September 11, 2025 12:23

Rename doc/Test Suite/test_join.md to tests/test_join.md

9cf8f67

Rename doc/Test Suite/test_mrf_insert.md to tests/test_mrf_insert.md

37ad095

Update Makefile.lcl

46d54e3

Rename MRF_UTILITIES_TEST_SUITE.md to MRF_Utilities_Test_Suite.md

591f1c2

Update Dockerfile

b41970d

Update Dockerfile

6841f95

Update Dockerfile

9c26057

Create Dockerfile

ad5ae30

Update MRF_Utilities_Test_Suite.md

ed44d3a

Update Dockerfile

a5a2e42

Update Dockerfile

d0cf961

Refactored Dockerfiles, fixed unit test bugs, also made changes to ut…

c1aaf2c

…ilities in mrf_apps

jtroberts reviewed Sep 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

jtroberts reviewed Sep 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

grabermtw reviewed Sep 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

Gitc 6903 Adding Unit Test Suite #83

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Gitc 6903 Adding Unit Test Suite #83

Uh oh!

Conversation

ozzp commented Sep 9, 2025

Summary

Tests identified potential bugs that need to be reviewed:

How to Test

Uh oh!

jtroberts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jtroberts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ozzp Sep 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jackiryan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jackiryan commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

ozzp commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

jackiryan commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

ozzp commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ozzp Sep 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading