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.
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. 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. > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Confluence-module-outstanding-issues...-tf4685061.html#a13404319 Sent from the Doxia - dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
