SCM: "Test only. The result does not yet comply to Stellarium's formatting rules."

As of release 25.3, sky cultures created with the SCM did not yet comply with Stellarium's formatting rules.

The expected behavior of the SCM would be full compliance with the guidelines and rules, so that the warning message (as stated in the title of this issue) can finally be removed. Quite a few changes have been made to the SCM since the message was added, which made me wonder when the message can be removed.

With this issue and your help, I hope to collect the concise requirements that need to be fulfilled by the SCM so that it does comply with Stellariums rules. (Maybe this is the case already, then this issue is trivial)

Thanks for your continued updates. I cannot do much this week, just a few ideas to check and make sure that:

Result's description.md follows structure (sequence of headers) in SUG 9.1. As mentioned a few days ago, a second-level chapter Asterisms may follow the second-level chapter Constellations. Inside, the singular constellations/asterisms are described under level 5 headers, the section title must be the "english" object name. Introductory general remarks on constellations must be moved to the Description chapter.
index.json follows elements described in SUG 9.2. The sequence of elements is technically IMO not relevant, but it does not hurt following modern skyculture or other existing and what's described in the SUG.

@10110111

Is this actually finished? @10110111 @alex-w has any of you tested the SCM?

@sushoff

@sushoff we need a (1-2 pp?) section in the SUG that describes this plugin, motivation, or any connections to the outside world. Such chapter is not optional but an integrated feature of any high quality extension. And only the developers (or initiators who use it and want other people to use it) can write this.

I know ... I had understood in Sept (perhaps wrongly) that you wanted to hide it from public view, as "test only", so I thought, the SUG section will be due in March next year (or so) ... at least, that is in my to-do-list - also, because of the geographic extension

@10110111

I was not pushing it to the forefront of users' attention (presenting in the foreword) as long as the result did not comply to technical tests with @10110111 's tool chain (section 9.1.4). As soon as such test shows no error, the warning should go away. This little change was expected to go into 25.4 (hence the question above: is that done?), and so it should have been mentioned in the foreword as being ready for use. Any further extension will come when ready.

Is this actually finished? @10110111 @alex-w has any of you tested the SCM?

I have tested and two others (a student and a colleague) ... the outcome are the Norse_Edda and the Vedic_Nakshatra cultures. The tool works well but there are some issues:

needs a description of what "ID" is (that this is used for "abbreviation" mode)
the duplicate HIPs, linebreaks, brackets in the linespoints need to be deleted
the user needs to be given the option to continue editing a saved SC
the .py-script that should be used for testing could also be implemented in the workflow (so that it doesn't come up later)
the formatting of the constellation descriptions in description.md now needs to be done according to the needs of the speech tool

Wishes:

add lunar system by dropdown selection
WYSIWYG for the description editor
currently, the stick figure is mandatory, I belief, because of the computation of convex hulls ... I don't know, if that really makes sense for all cultural researchers (but would still want it)

the formatting of the constellation descriptions in description.md now needs to be done according to the needs of the speech tool

The constellations and references sections are now generated automatically from the data typed by the user.

OK. I will move task to 26.1. This can be closed as soon as a SCM-created SC runs the structural test successfully. I had hoped in September this (a few linebreaks more or less?) was a rainy evening's work. Is that possible before 26.1, or really only 26.2? Of course, desired extensions/improvements (edit existing SC would be nice, indeed) will take more effort.

I didnt really have time yet to look into it. But if its really just minor adjustments, then 26.1 seems feasible.

The sequence of elements is technically IMO not relevant, but it does not hurt following modern skyculture or other existing and what's described in the SUG.

Btw: we tried but I think it was not possible with Qt to write json in a specific order. The problem is mentioned here too https://stackoverflow.com/a/32907752

I was not pushing it to the forefront of users' attention (presenting in the foreword) as long as the result did not comply to technical tests with @10110111 's tool chain (section 9.1.4). As soon as such test shows no error, the warning should go away. This little change was expected to go into 25.4 (hence the question above: is that done?), and so it should have been mentioned in the foreword as being ready for use. Any further extension will come when ready.

What is this tool chain to test an SC and where can I find it? The SUG at https://stellarium.org/files/guide.pdf doesnt seem to have any section 9.1.4, but it also says that its for version 25.2

The SUG at https://stellarium.org/files/guide.pdf doesnt seem to have any section 9.1.4, but it also says that its for version 25.2

You need to build the development version, by running make pdf in the guide directory.

I've created some SC's and the tool did not complain about anything. To me it seems like this issue can be closed then. I didnt have time to check it before and assumed there would be more work needed here, as I only saw that Susanne mentioned quite some things she would like to have changed/added. If you're fine with it, I can go ahead and remove the "Test only" message in a PR that will close this issue. Id do this ASAP to make it in (tomorrows?) december release

How do I draw a single-star constellation? Or is that possible only with manual entry?

@xLPMG

Tried again. Sorry, still fails to survive. After storing, program reloads SCs, then emits a series of messages like

[ 43995.703][CRIT] Failed to * find * [ "tukano" ] territory file in sky culture directory

then just closes. After relaunch of the program it crashes when calling the ViewDialog.

Are the missing files a critical error as reported that explains a crash, or are the territorial files optional? Probably qWarning() is enough.

Unfortunately, in a debug run it reports as:

ASSERT failure in QList::at: "index out of range", file C:\Qt\6.8.2\msvc2022_64\include\QtCore/qlist.h, line 461

which is super unspecific and hides the location where this triggered.

I then disabled my collection of SCs and created a new scycultures folder in my user data dir, and placed the new creation inside. This showed me finally the new selection UI. The list sorted by region is pretty welcome. Then there is the map, and it shows the two polygons I had defined for my test creation. I can envision the map should show polygons in hopefully various colors for all SCs, however we have not defined those polygons yet for the 61 SCs we are already providing. What does it take to create them, when SCs cannot be loaded and edited by the plugin?

@xLPMG , @alex-w, @10110111, @sushoff It is unfortunate, but we are 1 week from release, and something causes crashes, and a nice added feature does not show its potential yet as map data are missing. Our translator team also needs a few days to translate. Can we expect a miracle by Tuessday, or should we push this back to 26.2 and actually integrate this with testing in April and May, not June 15??

@mRaetz

sounds to me like a problem caused by Sky Culture Explorer and not the SCM itself @mRaetz

ask #4683

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

SCM: "Test only. The result does not yet comply to Stellarium's formatting rules." #4636

7 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

SCM: "Test only. The result does not yet comply to Stellarium's formatting rules." #4636

Description

Activity

gzotti commented on Nov 6, 2025

gzotti commented on Dec 20, 2025

gzotti commented on Dec 20, 2025

sushoff commented on Dec 20, 2025

gzotti commented on Dec 20, 2025

sushoff commented on Dec 20, 2025

7 remaining items

10110111 commented on Dec 20, 2025

xLPMG commented on Dec 20, 2025

xLPMG commented on Dec 20, 2025

xLPMG commented on Dec 20, 2025

10110111 commented on Dec 20, 2025

xLPMG commented on Dec 20, 2025

gzotti commented on Mar 21, 2026

gzotti commented on Mar 21, 2026

sushoff commented on Mar 22, 2026

sushoff commented on Mar 22, 2026

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions