Forgot to mention: for a confluence sink there is a feature request open
(DOXIA-124), any interest in writing one? :)
-Lukas
Lukas Theussl wrote:
Dave Syer wrote:
I already took that approach with the patch I submitted for
DOXIA-169. The
test actually goes beyond the one for the APT version. Also, the APT one
uses AptSink to accept output and make assertions about it. There is no
ConfluenceSink so I used TextSink - which I think is a better approach
anyway because I wouldn't want the test case to tightly couple the
*Parser
and *Sink.
Absolutely. I think in the apt case, the apt sink is only used to test
some special features, like macros, but in general, testing a parser
should not depend on a particular sink, and vice versa (see eg
DOXIA-100, DOXIA-101 for cases we have fixed already).
I can't write the whole test suite in one go, and I'm not sure why that
would help (all the tests would fail to start with), but we can do it
bit by
bit if you like, one feature at a time.
I mainly meant that it would help me to get familiar with the confluence
format. It would also be good to have a standard test document for each
parser, since then we can compare the parsing output with any arbitrary
test sink, eg the TextSink.
I don't see why all the tests would fail first, because the
AbstractParserTest by itself doesn't assert anything (apart some basic
well-formedness), it only parses the document so as long as parsing is
fine, you won't break anything.
-Lukas
Lukas Theussl-3 wrote:
Hi Dave,
I am a currently active doxia committer but I'm not really familiar
with the confluence module. If you submit some patches I will review
them, what would help me most as a start would be a complete
confluence test model test.confluence, to replace the current one in
src/test/resources/. It should produce the same text output as the
corresponding test files test.apt and test.xml in the apt and xdoc
modules.
Cheers,
-Lukas
Dave Syer wrote:
Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module right
now? Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but
no-one seems
to
be reviewing them, or working on them. Some are really trivial.
