> Dropping Option 6 because of Majority. (0.8084112149532710280373831775700934579439) 0.808 (173/214) < 1
Not particularly relevant, but is there any reason to include that many digits, especially when the source-of-truth fraction is right there?
Not particularly relevant, but is there any reason to include that many digits, especially when the source-of-truth fraction is right there?
I wouldn't be surprised if that text is machine generated from a template.
I think the question was, why does the tool show the non-truncated value for that one line, considering it put the truncated (%0.03f) version right next to it.
dvt-rslt:367-368 the ratio is interpolated into the string output without any format specification (resulting in the full decimal expansion), whereas in the passing case (line 382) it is not.
The ratio is formatted with %6.3f in both cases (369-372, 384-387).
That's what it does. Doesn't tell us why (though it looks like a simple oversight on the programmer's part).