Hi all, On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:14:14 +0100 Caolán McNamara <caol...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I've not been able to carve out time to look at this failure (for way > too long), but last time I checked it was a bookmarks test which > failed for me. So if the words "bookmarks" in writer, make anyone go, > "oh I did something there", it might be good to have a look at the > bookmarks complex test to see if the test itself needs updating. Running this against a debug build I get a lot of: sw/source/core/unocore/unobkm.cxx, Line 180: <SwXBookmark::GetObject(..)>SwXBookmark requested for non-bookmark mark. when executing getBookmarksHash in the test, which suggests something at odd in general with the the mark container, as a generic mark is cast to a bookmark, while it is not one. Best, Bjoern P.S.: As the original author of that bookmark test, here is a mea culpa: The test is not really suited well for debugging. It creates a huge set of bookmarks and then does a lot of pseudorandom delete/insert operations on the document and compares a hash of the bookmark contents with the one from a previous run. If the test fails, you just changed the behavior of bookmarks changed. If one fixed a broken behavior, that is of cause a Good Thing(tm), and the test needs to be updated. If nobody intended to change bookmark behavior it is likely a Bad Thing(tm). At least with onegit, we will soon be able to bisect to the suspicious commit and make the decision, if that was intended or not easier. ;) Of course, in this case it doesnt really matter because getting the hash should always work. -- https://launchpad.net/~bjoern-michaelsen _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
