Hello Robert, Robert Bocchino <bocch...@icloud.com> wrote: |On Sep 21, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Bertrand Garrigues <bertrand.\ |garrig...@laposte.net> wrote: |> I am not qualified to review your patch because I haven't studied |> grohtml's code, but I've tested it on the few .html files that are built |> by default in the 'doc' directory from pic.ms and webpage.ms, there are |> a few .html pages impacted but the result is unchanged, I haven't seen |> any regression.
I have your message also in my queue but it will take quite some time until i will be able to use your test. ..I agree with Betrand: it would be better to understand the code paths as such. |Thanks, Bertrand. | |I'm thinking it might be a good idea to start developing a \ |test suite for grohtml. That would (1) document what grohtml \ |is supposed to do, including identifying current known bugs, \ |and (2) provide a systematic way to verify that patches are \ |working as intended. | |Does the list agree? If so, I am happy to volunteer to work on this. I personally would be happy if there would be input <=> expected output tests available that could be driven by make(1) / sh(1) / awk(1). But having input <=> expected output datasets available at all would be just plain fantastic, especially if under GPL2 or ISC or another really free license! Ciao, --steffen
