Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2015-11-17, Georg Baum wrote: >> Guenter Milde wrote: >>> On 2015-11-17, Georg Baum wrote: > > >>> I don't agree: don't make tests complicated and opaque only to test this >>> obscure combination¹ (nobody really needs it). If LyX throws an error, >>> invert the test. > > ¹ XeTeX + TeX fonts > >> Inverting a test means: "I expect this test to fail, tell me if it does >> not". If nobody needs the tested combination, don't run tests for it. >> Running them although nobody cares for the result is only wasting time. > > This was my first opinion, too. However, I became convinced by the > argument, that if LyX provides this export route, we should also test it. > > >> I made the suggestion above because it looked to me as if a lot of effort >> was spent to make the combination XeTeX + TeX fonts work better. I think >> we really should decide whether we care for this combination or not. If >> we don't, then we should not spend further time with improving it, and we >> should stop running tests which test it. > > If we don't care, we must also close this route. > > Unfortunately, I did not manage to do this, but my suggestion is to > "exclude" XeTeX (grey out the XeTeX button) for the combination > > useNonTeXFonts == False && inputencoding != "ascii" > > As none of the documents shipping with LyX has inputencoding == "ascii", > this would effectively allow us to ingore all pdf4TeXF tests. > > >> If we do care, then we should continue with testing, and if there are >> volunteers also with improving the code. > > This is what I did after realizing I could not manage to close this route.
OK, but this means that we do care, and in this case the automatic comment removal is IMHO a good idea. Georg
