unit-testing | A repository containing JUnit and Spock sample code | Unit Testing library

good_gradient = torch.ones(*image_shape) / torch.sqrt(image_size)

First, note the Gradient Penalty term in WGAN is =>

(norm(gradient(interpolated)) - 1)^2

And for the Ideal Gradient (i.e. a Good Gradient), this Penalty term would be 0. i.e. A Good gradient is one which has its gradient_penalty is as close to 0 as possible

This means the following should satisfy, after considering the L2-Norm of the Gradient

i.e norm(gradient(x')) = 1

i.e. sqrt(Sum(gradient_i^2) ) = 1

Now if you just continue simplifying the above (considering how norm is calculated, see my note below) math expression, you will end up with

good_gradient = torch.ones(*image_shape) / torch.sqrt(image_size)

Since you are passing the image_shape as (256, 1, 28, 28) - so torch.sqrt(image_size) in your case is tensor(28.)

Effectively the above line is dividing each element of A 4-D Tensor like [[[[1., 1. ... ]]]] with a scaler tensor(28.)

torch.norm without extra arguments performs, what is called a Frobenius norm which is effectively reshaping the matrix into one long vector and returning the 2-norm of that.

Given an M * N matrix, The Frobenius Norm of a matrix is defined as the square root of the sum of the squares of the elements of the matrix.

The problem is that you have Node 17.2.0. locally but in Netlify's environment, you are running a lower version (by default it's not set as 17.2.0). So the local environment is OK, Netlify environment is KO because of this mismatch of Node versions.

When Netlify deploys your site it installs and builds again your site so you should ensure that both environments work under the same conditions. Otherwise, both node_modules will differ so your application will have different behavior or eventually won't even build because of dependency errors.

You can easily play with the Node version in multiple ways but I'd recommend using the .nvmrc file. Just run the following command in the root of your project:

This problem was caused by al_init() setting al_uninstall_system as an atexit function. The result was that the child performed the system uninstall when it exited. This can be prevented by calling al_install_system(ALLEGRO_VERSION_INT, NULL) instead of al_init(), and then manually calling al_uninstall_system() when the parent process finishes. There are other solutions, but that's what I've gone with for now, since my unit test programs only have one exit point.

The logic of comparing files seems alright, I don't find any outstanding problem with it, it is ok to prepend the "/" to match what you need. Could be even better if you could use the System.IO.Path.DirectorySeparatorChar for the directory root path as well, so if you run on windows or Linux you will have no issues.

But there may be a conceptual problem with what you are doing. To my understanding you aim to verify existence of specific configuration files required for your program to work right, if those files are missing than the program should fail. But that kind of failure due to missing configuration files, is an expected and valid result of your code. Yet, you unit-test this as if missing files should fail the test, as if missing files are an indication that something wrong with your code, this is wrong.

Missing files are not indication of your code not working correct and Unit-test should not be used as a validator to make sure the files exist prior executing the program, you will likely agree that unit-test is not part of the actual process and it should only aim to test your code and not preconditions, the test should compare an expected result (mock result of your code) vs. actual result and certainly not meant to become part of the code. That unit test looks like a validator that should be in the code.

So unless those files are produced by your specific code (and not the deployment) there is no sense testing that. In such case you need to create a configuration validator code - and your unit test could test that instead. So it will test that the validator expected result with a mock input you provide. But the thing here is that you would know that you only testing the validation logic and not the actual existence of the files.

The problem here is the partial type converts all object properties to optional:

If the error is because of the migrations you can skip the migration errors while running tests by using the following django library

django-test-without-migrations ( pip install django-test-without-migrations)

Install the library and add it in INSTALLED_APPS (settings.py)

The issue actually was purely in the setup of the unit test, binding between the control and the form worked fine when the component was used live. The problem in the unit test was that ReactiveFormsModule must be imported via TestBed.configureTestingModule; I also was not calling ngOnInit during setup, although its absence doesn't seem to have any effect (yet).

My updated setup code is below. Curiously, attempting to import ReactiveFormsModule the same way in the StackBlitz setup produces an error 'Maximum call stack size exceeded', but it works fine on my machine.

I don't know why but the new versions of the package don't work well and the method is no longer in, I downgraded the package to version "^1.3.7".

Change in your package.json:

In Gatsby, you can't define the webpack configuration like you did because Gatsby ships its own webpack.config.js as you can read in Gatsby's glossary.

However, Gatsby allows you to add a custom webpack configuration by exposing onCreateWebpackConfig method in your gatsby-node.js file.

So: