ci: enable new CI for vision package

[briandorsey]

Description

Batch CI related config change. Adding ci-setup.json to support running these tests under the new CI runner. No changes to tests themselves.

[ghost]

Hi team,

I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will provide my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed:

This pull request, authored by briandorsey, aims to enable a new CI configuration for the vision package. The changes are primarily focused on CI configuration and don't modify the tests themselves.

Here's a breakdown of the changes:

• Added vision package to CI configuration:
  • The vision package was added to the list of packages included in the Node.js development (nodejs-dev.jsonc) CI configuration (line 201). This ensures that the vision package's tests are included in the development CI pipeline.
  • Conversely, the vision package was removed from the Node.js production (nodejs-prod.jsonc) CI configuration (line 111). This suggests that the production CI pipeline will not include tests for the vision package. This might be intentional, but it warrants a closer look.
• Created ci-setup.json file: A new file, vision/ci-setup.json, was created (it's currently empty). This file likely serves as a configuration file for the new CI setup for the vision package. It's worth investigating why this file is empty at this stage.

Potential Issues to Consider:

• Empty ci-setup.json: The purpose of the empty vision/ci-setup.json file needs clarification. Is this a placeholder, or is there a reason for it being empty?
• Production CI Exclusion: The removal of vision from the production CI configuration should be reviewed to ensure it's intentional and doesn't introduce any risks.

I'll provide a more detailed review shortly, but this summary should give everyone a good starting point.

---

And now, a little haiku to brighten your day:

Code flows like a stream,
Tests run, a green light appears,
Vision takes its flight.

[ghost]

This pull request enables a new CI for the vision package by adding a ci-setup.json file and updating the CI configuration files. The changes are minimal and straightforward. However, the addition of an empty ci-setup.json file raises questions about its purpose and potential future content. Additionally, there are opportunities to improve clarity and consistency in the configuration files.

I have referenced the following elements from the provided style guide:

• File naming: ci-setup.json follows the kebab-case convention used in other configuration files like nodejs-dev.jsonc and nodejs-prod.jsonc.
• Configuration files: The use of JSON or JSONC for configuration files is consistent with the project's existing practice.

[glasnt]

This test checks the output of the call node detect.js logos resources/google.png, which runs detectLogos, and writes results to console that this then checks (execSync returns stdout from the command).

The problem here is that one of the failing test executions shows that the output is just "Logos:\n". Which I can replicate on my local machine:

$ node detect.js logos resources/google.png      
Logos:
$

The test will always return the "Logos:" string, but then loops around the results to return information. Since we're capturing stdout we can't easily get a count of the loops, but we could confirm that there is a description, rather than the contents of the description (description: appears in the output if there is a match).

Checking the other skipped tests, I am able to get consistent successes with the Landmarks detection, but I cannot get the Logo detection to work.

Looking further, it looks like the test data used in this test differs from the other repos (this repo uses "google.png", a transparent PNG, other repos use "logos.png", an upscaled logo on white background). But the existing resource "logos.png" in this repo, which uses the old logo, is detected correctly.

I would suggest changing the two logos tests to check that the literal string "description:" is in the output rather than the contents, and change the checked file to files[2].name (which is logos.png; while different to other repos logos.png, appears to succeed the logo identification test).

[briandorsey]

Thank you for this detailed investigation. Followed this and the suggestions in next commit.

[glasnt]

Suggested change

	// something changed in the output and this text is no longer in the output
	// however, the API call itself still works, commenting this out so
	// it's not breaking the tests.
	// assert.match(output, /Google/);
	// confirm there is output with a description, but not necessarily an exact value match
	assert.match(output, /description:/);

[glasnt]

Given below megacomment, change the check to confirm there is output, rather than the exact output.

Suggested change

	// something changed in the output and this text is no longer in the output
	// however, the API call itself still works, commenting this out so
	// it's not breaking the tests.
	// assert.match(output, /Palace of Fine Arts/i);
	// FLAKY: confirm there is output, if not an exact match on output
	assert.match(output, /description:/i);

[glasnt]

don't need both .toLowerCase() and /i (presuming that's a case-insensitive regex i)

Suggested change

	assert.match(stdout.toLowerCase(), /cat/i);
	assert.match(stdout, /cat/i);