com.google.fonts/check/glyph_coverage: Please print all missing glyphs
See original GitHub issueI regularly run into the issue that fontbakery prints a number of missing glyphs and then “and 10 more” without specifying them. The new rationale printing at least mentions the GF-latin-core
glyph-set, but I couldn’t find that glyph set anywhere, either.
So the work gets stuck at this point.
Please print out all the missing glyphs, and add a URL to the glyph set to the rationale for reference. Thank you.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 4 years ago
- Reactions:1
- Comments:15 (10 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Issue to fix for Google Fonts #17 - aminabedi68/Estedad
As mentioned, here is the complete bug report from Google Fonts' ... and glyph coverage, although they are only four missing characters, ...
Read more >Source code for fontbakery.profiles.universal - Read the Docs
[docs]@check( id = 'com.google.fonts/check/family/single_directory', rationale = """ If the set of font files passed in the command line is not all in the ......
Read more >Use Noto fonts - Google Fonts
Noto fonts are licensed under the Open Font License. You can use them in all your products and projects — print or digital,...
Read more >How do I get the full version of the Roboto font? - Stack Overflow
I don't think there's any way to get the full version from Google Fonts as ... So if you're missing glyphs that you...
Read more >All The Fontbakery Checks!
Check `Google Fonts Latin Core` glyph coverage. Google Fonts expects that fonts in its collection support at least the minimal set of characters...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
I hope you like it 😃
No, you are separating it.
I’m sorry that you feel that way, but the intention of having many different log entries with different log levels in one check output is to be able to do exactly that.