Add SR2025 Venue Maps to the Competition event page

[PeterJCLaw]

These are extracted from the CI build of the floorplans repo:

• srobo/comp-floorplans@e0c7ce2
• https://github.com/srobo/comp-floorplans/actions/runs/13957873494/artifacts/2784492185

Files 'map-with-teams.{pdf,png}' renamed to 'venue-map.{pdf,png}'.

Contributes to srobo/tasks#1426.

[WillB97]

It would be better to take artifacts from the release.

[PeterJCLaw]

It would be better to take artifacts from the release.

Huh, hadn't spotted that there were releases on that repo. The commit in question however is the commit which is tagged as the latest release, so is it not safe to assume that the artefacts are the same? (I can't actually see how the artefacts get from the CI build to the release, though I'd strongly hope that they're not being modified in that process).

[PeterJCLaw]

It would be better to take artifacts from the release.

Huh, hadn't spotted that there were releases on that repo. The commit in question however is the commit which is tagged as the latest release, so is it not safe to assume that the artefacts are the same? (I can't actually see how the artefacts get from the CI build to the release, though I'd strongly hope that they're not being modified in that process).

Comparing the assets: it seems that the PNG is the same, however the PDF is different. Do we know what's changed in the PDF on the release? (I can't immediately see any differences, though would very much prefer to use an asset which has clear provenance)

[PeterJCLaw]

For clarity: I'm not planning to update this PR to use the assets from the release -- the files there appear to be in error vs CI and we should prefer CI generated assets (as that ensures they match the source).

[WillB97]

Please use the artifacts from the release, I have just fixed the text rendering in the PDF.

Note: the artifacts of the release were generated from the action on the commit pointed to by the release, not the tag that was created by the release.

[PeterJCLaw]

Please use the artifacts from the release, I have just fixed the text rendering in the PDF.

Note: the artifacts of the release were generated from the action on the commit pointed to by the release, not the tag that was created by the release.

I'm sorry, I don't fully understand what's meant by either of these statements.

Please use the artifacts from the release, I have just fixed the text rendering in the PDF.

Do you mean that you have pushed commits which fix the rendering? (I don't see any new commits) Or do you mean that you have manually changed the PDF asset on the release to fix something?
If the latter then that's the sort of thing I don't think we should be doing as it removes the provenance chain and makes the assets hard to reproduce. We should strongly favour fixing CI so that CI produces usable assets reliably.

Note: the artifacts of the release were generated from the action on the commit pointed to by the release, not the tag that was created by the release.

Could you clarify by linking to the Actions run which you're referring to here? The run I pulled the assets from is https://github.com/srobo/comp-floorplans/actions/runs/13957873494/, which appears to be the one attached to the tag. The other actions run ([edited copy/pasta failed] https://github.com/srobo/comp-floorplans/actions/runs/13955524761) produced the same PNG but different PDF. The PDF on the release however matches neither of those.

[WillB97]

This action was used: https://github.com/srobo/comp-floorplans/actions/runs/13955524761.

I have manually fixed font rendering on the PDF using the SVG from this output.

[PeterJCLaw]

What needed fixing? Both actions runs produce identical SVGs. All three PDFs also look fine to me.

If there's something wrong with how the CI produces the assets please could we at least record that as an issue on the repo along with the steps being used to address it? We shouldn't be relying on opaque manual steps as they make it harder for other people to understand processes and are likely to be forgotten in future. If we need to rely on them we should at least document the need and what they are.

[PeterJCLaw]

Meta: would it be worth moving to a quick chat for this? I'm conscious that back & forths on a PR easily end up feeling antagonistic through trivial misunderstandings. I accept there are probably good reasons for your request/approach here, I'm just trying to understand what it is and how we ensure things are clear for the future.

[PeterJCLaw]

What needed fixing? Both actions runs produce identical SVGs. All three PDFs also look fine to me.

I'm wondering if this is a platform specific rendering issue? I'm using Firefox on Ubuntu to look at them and while there are some very minor whitespace differences between the CI produced assets and the one from the release, either seems fine to me and without the comparison I wouldn't notice anything amiss. (Happy to provide screenshots if that's useful)

Please could you elaborate on what the issues were which needed fixing?

[WillB97]

Capital A's render incorrectly.

[richardbarlow]

That looks like the fill rule on the text object being set to even-odd: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/SVG/Reference/Attribute/fill-rule

In Inkscape, changed with the buttons in the top right of the fill/stroke dialog: https://inkscape-manuals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/_images/fill_and_stroke_dialog-stroke_paint_tab.png

[PeterJCLaw]

That is most odd, though now you mention it I feel we've maybe had this issue before? Oddly it doesn't reproduce for me, even now I know what to look for, very weird. We should definitely get this logged so we're not relying on individuals happening to know about it to fix it.

[PeterJCLaw]

srobo/comp-floorplans#41

[PeterJCLaw]

The competition happened.