Is the right glyphset checked for minimal glyphs coverage?

[RosaWagner]

Last update of Fontbakery brought a bunch of missing codepoints that are actually not required in GF Latin Core.

In report for ABeeZee I got these fails:
(google/fonts#4227 (comment))

🔥 FAIL: Check `Google Fonts Latin Core` glyph coverage.
com.google.fonts/check/glyph_coverage
--- Rationale ---
Google Fonts expects that fonts in its collection support at least the minimal
set of characters defined in the `GF-latin-core` glyph-set.
🔥 FAIL Missing required codepoints:

0x02BB (MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA)

0x02BC (MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE)

0x2002 (EN SPACE)

0x2009 (THIN SPACE)

0x200B (ZERO WIDTH SPACE)

0x2032 (PRIME)

0x2033 (DOUBLE PRIME)

0x2122 (TRADE MARK SIGN)

0x2191 (UPWARDS ARROW)

0x2193 (DOWNWARDS ARROW)

0xFEFF (ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE)

And 0xFFFD (REPLACEMENT CHARACTER)
[code: missing-codepoints]

None of those are in:
https://github.com/googlefonts/glyphsets/blob/main/Lib/glyphsets/encodings/GF%20Glyph%20Sets/GF-latin-core_unique-glyphs.nam

--> Fontbakery should check Latin Core, and not another one.

[RosaWagner]

Having this issue with 0.8.7

Soft-hyphen and division slash are not in the nam file anymore. So I wonder if we are now using the last version of the glyphset.

🔥 FAIL: Check `Google Fonts Latin Core` glyph coverage.
* [com.google.fonts/check/glyph_coverage](https://font-bakery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fontbakery/profiles/googlefonts.html#com.google.fonts/check/glyph_coverage)
🔥 FAIL Missing required codepoints:

0x00AD (SOFT HYPHEN)

0x00AF (MACRON)

0x2074 (SUPERSCRIPT FOUR)

And 0x2215 (DIVISION SLASH) [code: missing-codepoints]

[felipesanches]

I will review this.

[felipesanches]

I'm sorry, I'll have to postpone this to the next release because #3675 is critical and urgently requires a new release as it is already fixed on git.

[felipesanches]

The recent work by @RosaWagner and @m4rc1e at #3753 is supposed to have fixed this. Please reopen the issue otherwise.

[vv-monsalve]

Inspecting this FB report, I see division slash is still reported as missing. Is the check using the latest .nam file?

[vv-monsalve]

I've seen the FB version was 0.8.8.dev29+g809e15c6 so closing the issue.