On 2015-11-24, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:40:11PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote: >> On 2015-11-21, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> > Below are my current (on 77979d91) test failures: >> Thank you for the list. However, I would rather call this a list of >> "export failures". >> Only a small subset of them are "test failures": >> the others are either >> a) passing the test if export fails (inverted), or >> b) passing the test in any case or not tested (nonstandard, ignored) > I've read this a few times and don't understand. The reason why I don't > like the phrase "export failure" is because we don't know if an export > failure is expected or not. This exactly was my critique: your list contains both "straight" and "inverted" tests and it is not clear which of them require now our attention. > Once the tests are stable, however, we > should expect all tests to pass. There were many test lines in the list (everything inverted and non-standard), where I would call the test suite "stable" regardless of the outcome of this special test cases. >> Strange. >> Here, IEEEtran-Conference.lyx compiles with both, pdflatex and lualatex >> while IEEEtran-TransMag.lyx fails with both, due to undefined commands >> (version clash?). > Good to know. This might have to do with my outdated TL 2015. I'll see > if this changes when updating. >> > 3900:NON_STANDARD.export/templates/IUCr-article_pdf4_systemF >> > 4033:export/templates/ectaart_dvi3_texF >> > 4034:export/templates/ectaart_dvi3_systemF >> > 4040:export/templates/ectaart_pdf5_texF >> > 4041:export/templates/ectaart_pdf5_systemF >> Non standard, see http://wiki.lyx.org/Examples/Econometrica > I still don't understand what NON_STANDARD means (did we define it > somewhere in Development.lyx?) but indeed it is not in TeX Live so in > that sense I agree. I understand "non standard" in primary sense to mean "requires non-standard ressources (LaTeX packages and document classes, fonts, ... that are not a requirement for running this test suite". In a wider sense, it is currently used for "not to be expected to succeed on every site that runs this test suite". This wider definition includes tests that have "arbitrary" result depending on local configuration, OS, TeX distribution, package versions, or the phase of the moon. A more accurate name for this wider definition would be "random_result". > By the way, Günter, am I correct that you can now run the tests > yourself? No, I can't. Günter
