Am Sonntag, 1. November 2015 um 19:37:41, schrieb Guenter Milde <mi...@users.sf.net> > On 2015-10-30, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Freitag, 30. Oktober 2015 um 19:23:02, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > > <skost...@lyx.org> > >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:11:52PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote: > >> > On 2015-10-28, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >> > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:33:22PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote: > >> > > >> > ... > >> > > >> > >> However, if the exit status of an export test changes (from fail > >> > >> to pass or vice versa), we should check whether this is due to a > >> > >> new bug, a fix or just exposing previously hidden problems. > >> > > >> > > Agreed. In fact, sometimes it is an improvement when a test fails. > >> > > When I check manually, it was passing before but showing garbled > >> > > text in a PDF output. Now it might fail with a clear message of > >> > > "language xyz not supported". It is always good to check manually > >> > > why something fails and if it passes if the PDF output is good. > >> > > >> > And, instead of re-establishing this with every status change, we > >> > could have "tags" for inverted tests, distinguishing: > >> > > >> > * failure because of known permanent incompatiblity (good failure) > >> > e.g. lyx -e latex ... for a document using non-TeX fonts > >> > > >> > * failure because of ERT or preamble code (not LyX's fault) > >> > > >> > * failure because of upstream bugs > >> > > >> > * failure because of known LyX bugs > >> > > >> > * failure for unknown reason with non-standard export route > >> > e.g. XeTeX and TeX-fonts > > >> Yes this would be nice. Right now I just try to put that information > >> as a comment for why we invert a test, but it would be nice to have > >> that information more easily available in the test summary. > > > I don't know how such an info can go to a summary. > > We could have separate files for the tests that we revert for different > reasons. Or use a set of keywords. > > > Besides we have ATM about 200 failing export test cases. > > Too many to be helpfull. > > > The summary contains lines like: > > Label Time Summary: > > export = 59316.83 sec (3753 tests) > > key = 0.26 sec (1 test) > > reverted = 5631.52 sec (312 tests) > > > Even if we label some tests, the summary does not specify > > how mane tests went wrong for a specified label. > > How many of these are for the obscure combination of Xetex and Tex fonts? > While there is a use case for LuaTeX and TeX fonts, I can't see a reason to > use Xetex instead of pdflatex with TeX fonts!
316 tests are XeTex + system font, 52 (not inverted) of them fail, 42 inverted
316 tests are XeTex + tex font, 12 (not inverted) of them fail, 54 inverted
> Solving all issues that arise from this combination is diverting attention
> and ressources from more important tasks.
Most of these tests were working some time ago. We already have many inverted
test.
I am strongly against such policy. First one has to check if the reason is
really
babel/polyglossia conflict.
> Also, we identified some generic problems with this combination that are
> not solvable in the short term: third party packages well as documents
> not prepared for this use case.
>
> Just reverting failing Xetex export tests for the moment would allow us to
> concentrfate on the remaining failing test and get the test suite in a
> usable state again.
Optimist (I mean 'usable state').
I am strongly against such policy. First one has to check if the reason is
really
babel/polyglossia conflict.
There are already too many tests inverted, no one cares anymore.
> Günter
>
Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
