Fontbakery Technical Report

If you think a check is flawed or have an idea for a check, please file an issue at https://github.com/googlefonts/fontbakery/issues and remember to include a pointer to the repo and branch you're checking.

Summary

💥 ERROR	🔥 FAIL	⚠️ WARN	⏩ SKIP	ℹ️ INFO	✅ PASS
0	1	5	117	7	110
0%	1%	3%	68%	4%	64%

Note: The following loglevels were omitted in this report: SKIP, INFO, PASS, DEBUG

<Section: Google Fonts> 🔥⚠️⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩ℹ️ℹ️ℹ️ℹ️ℹ️

Ensure fonts have ScriptLangTags declared on the 'meta' table.

Check ID: <FontBakeryCheck:com.google.fonts/check/meta/script_lang_tags>

⚠️ fonts/NotoSansRunic/googlefonts/ttf/NotoSansRunic-Regular.ttf

⚠️ WARN
This font file does not have a 'meta' table. [code: lacks-meta-table]

Noto fonts must have an ARTICLE.en_us.html file

Check ID: <FontBakeryCheck:com.google.fonts/check/description/noto_has_article>

🔥 fonts/NotoSansRunic/googlefonts/ttf/NotoSansRunic-Regular.ttf

🔥 FAIL
This is a Noto font but it lacks an ARTICLE.en_us.html file [code: missing-article]

<Section: Universal> ⚠️⚠️⚠️⏩⏩⏩⏩⏩ℹ️ℹ️

Check font contains no unreachable glyphs

Check ID: <FontBakeryCheck:com.google.fonts/check/unreachable_glyphs>

⚠️ fonts/NotoSansRunic/googlefonts/ttf/NotoSansRunic-Regular.ttf

⚠️ WARN
The following glyphs could not be reached by codepoint or substitution rules:
```
- uni00A0.1
```
[code: unreachable-glyphs]

Check if each glyph has the recommended amount of contours.

Check ID: <FontBakeryCheck:com.google.fonts/check/contour_count>

⚠️ fonts/NotoSansRunic/googlefonts/ttf/NotoSansRunic-Regular.ttf

⚠️ WARN
This check inspects the glyph outlines and detects the total number of contours in each of them. The expected values are infered from the typical ammounts of contours observed in a large collection of reference font families. The divergences listed below may simply indicate a significantly different design on some of your glyphs. On the other hand, some of these may flag actual bugs in the font such as glyphs mapped to an incorrect codepoint. Please consider reviewing the design and codepoint assignment of these to make sure they are correct.

The following glyphs do not have the recommended number of contours:
```
- Glyph name: aogonek	Contours detected: 3	Expected: 2

- Glyph name: uogonek	Contours detected: 2	Expected: 1

- Glyph name: aogonek	Contours detected: 3	Expected: 2 

- Glyph name: uogonek	Contours detected: 2	Expected: 1
```
[code: contour-count]

Check math signs have the same width.

Check ID: <FontBakeryCheck:com.google.fonts/check/math_signs_width>

⚠️ fonts/NotoSansRunic/googlefonts/ttf/NotoSansRunic-Regular.ttf

⚠️ WARN
The most common width is 572 among a set of 6 math glyphs. The following math glyphs have a different width, though:

Width = 322: minus [code: width-outliers]

<Section: Outline Correctness Checks> ⚠️

Are any segments inordinately short?

Check ID: <FontBakeryCheck:com.google.fonts/check/outline_short_segments>

⚠️ fonts/NotoSansRunic/googlefonts/ttf/NotoSansRunic-Regular.ttf

⚠️ WARN

The following glyphs have segments which seem very short:

* two (U+0032) contains a short segment L<<159.0,84.0>--<159.0,80.0>>

* at (U+0040) contains a short segment B<<613.0,293.0>-<612.0,275.0>-<612.0,267.5>>

* at (U+0040) contains a short segment B<<612.0,267.5>-<612.0,260.0>-<612.0,257.0>>

* M (U+004D) contains a short segment L<<177.0,626.0>--<173.0,626.0>>

* M (U+004D) contains a short segment L<<450.0,129.0>--<454.0,129.0>>

* N (U+004E) contains a short segment L<<176.0,593.0>--<172.0,593.0>>

* N (U+004E) contains a short segment L<<582.0,123.0>--<586.0,123.0>>

* Q (U+0051) contains a short segment B<<416.0,-9.0>-<410.0,-9.0>-<403.5,-9.5>>

* Q (U+0051) contains a short segment B<<403.5,-9.5>-<397.0,-10.0>-<391.0,-10.0>>

* W (U+0057) contains a short segment B<<468.0,577.5>-<463.0,600.0>-<461.0,609.0>> 

* 80 more.

Use -F or --full-lists to disable shortening of long lists. [code: found-short-segments]