Re: [xmlroff] make testing more accessible to contributors

[Tony G. <Ton...@Su...>]

Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> Tony Graham wrote:
>> Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
>>
>>>When trying to confine a bug I tried to first see whether it was already
>>>covered by an existing test. Unfortunately, I found the existing test
>>>infrastructure a bit confusing / hard to use.
>>>
>>>Is there anything that could be done to make that easier ? Ideally
>>>I would only need to have to check out an additional module (not two !)
>>>and then run 'make check' (or similar) in it.
>>>I did glance over some READMEs both in 'testsuite' as well as 'testing',
>>>but couldn't quite get it to work.
>> Are you still stuck?
>
> Sorry, haven't had time to look at it again after your explanations.
> The reason I asked originally was because I was looking for some test
> case I could use to find out whether some issues I observed with my own
> document were known / expected.
>
> Meanwhile I get my answer without looking at the test suite.
>
> I still think that the test suite is important not only to developers,
> but also to users who want to know what they can expect from xmlroff.
> However, for the latter it would be best if features were expressed in
> terms of their own language, e.g. docbook constructs that would fail,
> instead of fo (which most users only care little about).
>
> However, I can understand that it is out of the scope for xmlroff, and
> you in particular, to set up a list of such issues.
> Or may be it is some combination of the existing test suite results
> with the filtering done by libfo-compat.xsl...

Something like the DocBook 'docbook-testdocs' package [1] run through the
DocBook stylesheets and libfo-compat.xsl?

If we are going to want to become the best little DocBook formatter on the
planet, that would be one place to start.

Regards,


Tony.

[1] http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=98501&group_id=21935