On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Vincent van Ravesteijn <v...@lyx.org> wrote: > Op 5-8-2013 14:37, Kornel Benko schreef: > > Am Montag, 5. August 2013 um 08:22:19, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > <skost...@lyx.org> > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Kornel Benko <kor...@lyx.org> wrote: > >> > Am Montag, 5. August 2013 um 08:01:08, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > >> > <skost...@lyx.org> > >> > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> > Sorry, I meant "This is also a test for lyx2lyx, isn't it?" > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> My opinion is that we should update those documents. I agree that it > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > attic is just garbage and it is somewhat absurd that test should fail > >> > > >> >> > because of some contents in there. Please create proper tests for > >> > > >> >> > things you want to test and do not impose some future maintenance > >> > > >> >> > burden like "we should keep stuff in attic up-to-date". > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> OK. Attached is a patch. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Scott > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Why not check earlier? > >> > >> Indeed, that is better. I think you can commit that (if you agree with > >> it). Both Vincent and Pavel are in favor of not testing attic. > >> > >> Scott > > > > I do not agree. We should check attic too IMHO (or else do not provide it). > > Therefore I prefer you to commit :) > > > > Kornel > > > If you would ask me, I would veto any decision to force a check of the attic > documents. I totally agree with Pavel that it is rather stupid to maintain > documents that we have declared obsolete. > > The problem here is that it is not clear what is being tested. You seem to > have the idea that you're testing LyX using the docs. However, if they were > proper tests, the documents should never change unless LyX's behaviour > changes. This is not the case here. The docs are constantly updated, by > developers, by translators etc. If a document got broken by some exotic > combination of preamble changes, change tracking, and maybe some asian > characters, the tests suddenly tells us that LyX is broken, while LyX didn't > change.
It is clear that these aren't proper LyX tests. But I think that improper tests are better than no tests. They have already caught several LyX regressions. > I don't like to have to fix the chinese documents to be able to still use > the tests. Or to fix the preamble of the obsoleted polish math manual, > because otherwise the tests don't pass. Fixing the tests is the same as fixing the default viewing, which is important regardless of the tests. Scott
