False FAIL in com.google.fonts/check/glyph_coverage
See original GitHub issue(NOTE: If your issue is related to a specific check, please consider mentioning its check-id on the issue title.)
Observed behaviour
The attached font fails with:
$ fontbakery check-googlefonts -c com.google.fonts/check/glyph_coverage NotoSansBuhid-Regular.ttf
FAIL Missing required codepoints:
...
│ - 0x00AF (MACRON) │
...
Expected behaviour
The font contains a macron so should not fail.
$ hb-shape NotoSansBuhid-Regular.ttf -u 0x00AF
[overscore=0+500]
Resources and exact process needed to replicate
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created a year ago
- Comments:7 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Issues - GitHub
It seems that the glyph coverage check doesn't recognise it. 🔥 FAIL: Check Google Fonts glyph coverage.
Read more >googlefonts — Font Bakery 0.7.34 documentation
This check currently does not cover variable fonts because there's plenty of alternative ways of constructing glyphs with multiple outlines for each feature...
Read more >Fontbakery Check Report
Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours. Check ID: <FontBakeryCheck:com.google.fonts/check/contour_count>.
Read more >Noto Home - Google Fonts
Fonts for all languages. Noto is a collection of high-quality fonts with multiple weights and widths in sans, serif, mono, and other styles....
Read more >https://raw.githubusercontent.com/googlefonts/font...
(PR #3866) - **[com.google.fonts/check/linegaps]:** Fixed crash by checking ... glyphs (PR #3807) - **[com.google.fonts/check/name/rfn]:** Do not FAIL if an ...
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 don’t think we should require a production name, at least for this check; the check is about “glyph coverage” and “required codepoints”, and the font supports that codepoint. Maybe a production names check could be a different check?
This should be solved now.