Am Sonntag, 2. Dezember 2012 um 12:20:01, schrieb Georg Baum <georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de> > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > I am not sure, I understand. This patch effectively converts > > 1.) provided lyx-files (test references) to new file format, this should > > not be controversial 2.) generated lyx-files (with tex2lyx). This should > > not be needed > > > > so only the second point is unclear. > > 1.) Adds a dependency on lyx2lyx. This is no problem as long as lyx2lyx > works fine, but if lyx2lyx has a bug (which is not too unlikely directly > after introducing a new format), you can get a false error or even a false > success (if the lyx2lyx bug hides a tex2lyx bug).
Good point. But then, how do you create the new xyzzy.lyx.lyx file, if not
through lyx2lyx?
> If 2. is not needed you assume that tex2lyx will always produce a correct
> format. But if you can safely assume this then the tests are not needed
> either.
I am not assuming tex2lyx being correct. I wanted to check, if the output of
file created with tex2lyx will be lyx-interpreted the same, as is xyzzy.lyx.lyx.
> I'd really like to handle the tex2lyx tests very much like unit tests. Unit
> tests test only a small, well defined portion of a project, in this case
> tex2lyx (which is not really small, but quite easy to test as a whole) and
> nothing more.
Then we need a test for lyx2lyx too, don't we?
> >
> > In cmake:
> > pushd <buildtree>
> > make test
> > popd
>
> Very good!
Thanks
>
> Georg
Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
