On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:52:08AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > On 11/01/2015 11:37 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:32:17AM -0500, Richard Heck wrote: > >>On 10/31/2015 05:47 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >>>The list of tests at the bottom of this message pass on current master > >>>[1] but do not pass on current master after exporting the .lyx files to > >>>2.1.x format. So this is in some sense a compilation test of roundtrip > >>>lyx2lyx. > >>Is what this shows just that exporting to 2.1.x format and then re-importing > >>to current format doesn't produce the same file? If so, then that isn't > >>itself a sign of any problem, since lyx2lyx almost never produces the same > >>file on roundtrip. This is because reversion often uses ERT. > >By "compilation test" I mean that it is a test of whether the LaTeX > >compiles with error. So each item on the list compiles without error but > >after exporting and re-importing it compiles with error. This is not a > >good test because it will miss many bugs, but it seems to me that a > >failure does suggest something to look at. > > OK, well, that is more of a problem. Do you have any automated way to figure > out which step is causing the problem? One way to do this would be to export > to 498 and re-import, etc, and then see where it fails. Then we would at > least know which reversion-conersion sequence was the cause of the problem.
OK I will look into it and let you know. > >Since you brought it up though, Kornel and I have discussed comparing > >the .tex files. While we understand that the .lyx files are not expected > >to be the same (for the reason you mentioned above), do you think it is > >reasonable to expect the LaTeX output to be the same? > > Not really. It'd be more reasonable to expect the compiled documents (PDFs, > e.g.) to be the same, but even that we do not always guarantee. I see. So it is reasonable to expect a md5sum on the PDFs to be the same? Scott
