[base_has_width] The test fails if U+0488 and U+0489 has 0 advance width, but isn't it excepted?

[Corne2Plum3]

Observed behaviour

I'm making a font which includes the following glyphs:

• COMBINING CYRILLIC HUNDRED THOUSANDS SIGN (U+0488)
• COMBINING CYRILLIC MILLIONS SIGN (U+0489)

The test returns fails because on my font they have 0 width...

Expected behaviour

The 2 glyphs mentioned in this issues are non-spacing mark (from my research) and thus the width of 0 should be excepted, or at least, shouldn't count as a fail. Fonts such as "Noto Sans" (v2.004) or "Free Sans" (v0412.4271) gives an advance of zero for these glyphs...

If I'm a wrong, tell me.

Resources and steps needed to reproduce

I used the commande fontbakery check-googlefonts on a font which has a zero-width, for example this one and got this displayed in the terminal:

(btw the first entry is displayed out of the area for the list of problematic glyphs, even with the HTML report obtained with --html, probably a bug too)

• OS: Ubuntu 24.10 x86_64
• Python: Python 3.12.7 (in a virtual environement created with python3 -m venv venv)
• FontBakery version: 0.13.2

[bobh0303]

Could be same as #5007

[bobh0303]

Noto Sans v2.015 also reports those glyphs; can confirm that with PR #5008 the font passes.

[bobh0303]

PR #5008 has been merged so you might want to re-test your font and see if this issue can be closed.

[Corne2Plum3]

@bobh0303 I'll recheck once a new update is released including #5008.