Hi Ralph, At 2023-04-06T12:59:57+0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote: [snip] > Would it be worth testing all of $output is exactly as expected? This > would widen what's being tested which may catch a future regression > outside the scope of this test, e.g. with .DS/.DE. The downside is a > deliberate change might ripple through more tests but the fix-up > should be straightforward and would preserve the wider testing.
I see the value in both approaches. On the one hand I like the idea of detecting inadvertent changes to vertical spacing (or anything else) in a document, but on the other, I find narrowly scoped regression tests to be advantageous. > output=\ > ',,,,,,The first page is 1.,, display,,,,,,,,, > ,,, -2-,,,The second page is 2. > ' > output=$(echo "$output" | tr , \\012) This is a good suggestion for handling blank line-happy output, of which we have quite a bit in groff. I think maybe the best-of-both-worlds solution is to have a model document-based automated test--perhaps one that exercises as many ms(7) macros as possible. That would permit the retention of the narrow scope of regression tests aimed at specific bugs, which necessarily tell you something specific when they fail, but would add the highly sensitive Rumsfeldian "unknown unknowns" problem detection that I think your suggestion is tuned to. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
