Revert "fix(tests): five rfdetr-seg static-crop tests shadow each other by name"

[PawelPeczek-Roboflow]

Reverts #2948

[PawelPeczek-Roboflow]

Reverting due to no CLA

[github-actions]

👋 Thanks for the pull request! Here is how automated Claude review works here, so you spend credits (and reviewer time) wisely.

🚦 This PR is marked Ready for review, so automated Claude review will run — and every pass spends real credits.

Warning

💸 The Claude reviewer bills in credits, not vibes

Automated review spins up a real agent that reads real code and spends real credits on every pass. It is glad to help — but it is not a rubber duck, a linter you poke in a loop, or a substitute for reading the contributing guide. Treat it like an expensive senior reviewer whose time you booked, and show up prepared.

Draft when unsure, Ready when you mean it:

• 🌱 Not sure the PR is in good shape yet? Keep it (or set it back) as a draft — drafts pause review, so you can push and iterate without burning credits on a moving target.
• 💪 Feel strong about the contents? Mark it Ready for review and the reviewer will take a look.

However you get there, arrive prepared:

• 🧱 Bring a SOLID, thorough PR. Point your local agent at our skills/ to tune it to our guidelines first — or, if you are one of those fabled carbon-based contributors, read them yourself. A half-baked diff costs exactly the same to review as a finished one.
• ✅ Resolve every comment before you re-request review. Re-requesting with threads still open means paying twice for the same conversation.
• 🔁 Do not use CI review as an inner loop for a local agent. The reviewer is not a step-by-step debugger — do the unfolding locally and arrive with the answer, not the search.
• 🙋 If something looks off, ask a human. One question to a maintainer is cheaper and faster than three rounds of agent re-review chasing a misread.

Reviews are not free. A draft costs nothing to review; a Ready PR is a promise that it is worth reviewing.

• Prefer to skip automated review entirely? Add the skip-claude-review label.

[github-actions]

🤖 Claude review started at commit 624a10f9c568858a62ccb2e00f77d5e5f615282e.

New commits are not auto-reviewed. Add the claude-review label to request a re-review — the label is consumed when the review starts, so just add it again next time.

[github-actions]

Medium — this revert reintroduces the name shadowing that #2948 fixed.

After this revert, five test names each appear twice in this module:

• test_package_with_static_crop_letterbox_against_numpy_input — line 938 (uses ..._static_crop_letterbox_package) and line 1088 (uses ..._static_crop_center_crop_package)
• test_package_with_static_crop_letterbox_against_numpy_list_input — lines 965 / 1121
• test_package_with_static_crop_letterbox_against_torch_input — lines 996 / 1164
• test_package_with_static_crop_letterbox_against_torch_list_input — lines 1023 / 1197
• test_package_with_static_crop_letterbox_against_torch_batch_input — lines 1054 / 1240

Because these are module-level defs with identical names, Python keeps only the last definition. pytest collects only the second occurrence of each (the center_crop-fixture versions at 1088–1240); the five genuine letterbox static-crop tests at 938–1084 are silently dropped from collection — never run, no failure, no skip. That is the exact regression #2948 was renaming these functions to fix.

I understand this is a deliberate revert for CLA reasons (per your "Reverting due to no CLA" comment) rather than a technical disagreement with the fix. Flagging only so the coverage loss is on record: the letterbox static-crop ONNX path loses its five tests until the rename is re-applied under proper attribution.

Reviewed at HEAD: 624a10f

[github-actions]

Review summary

Skills: review-inference-models-pkg, review-topic-test-hygiene

This PR reverts #2948 (a test-name fix), stated as "Reverting due to no CLA" — a process decision, not a technical one. It touches only test function names in inference_models/tests/integration_tests/models/test_rfdetr_seg_predictions_onnx.py, so it is not early-skip-eligible: the renames change which tests pytest actually collects.

One Medium finding (inline): the revert reintroduces the name shadowing #2948 fixed. Five test_package_with_static_crop_letterbox_against_* names now each appear twice in the module; Python keeps only the last def, so the five genuine letterbox static-crop tests (lines 938–1084) are silently dropped from collection and the center_crop-fixture tests run under a letterbox name. Net effect: the letterbox static-crop ONNX path loses its five tests.

No blocking action requested if the revert is intentional for CLA/attribution reasons — this is on record so the coverage loss is visible and the rename can be re-applied under proper attribution.

Reviewed at HEAD: 624a10f