Re: [Libreoffice] fix for fdo#33960 cross reference to a list number, dot bug makes sw/qa/complex/writer fail
On 09/07/2011 11:15 PM, Troy Rollo wrote: On Wednesday 07 September 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: Troy, will you come up with a fix that brings sw/source/core/doc/number.cxx and sw/qa/complex/writer/CheckCrossReferences.java in sync again? I won't be able to do that until mid November due to other commitments. Reopened https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33960 cross reference to a list number, dot bug and disabled the failing tests as http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=e849071acc91cafd05d52326e6a5cccf750836c1 fdo#33960#, fdo#35690#: Disabled failing checkCrossReferences tests for now. -Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] fix for fdo#33960 cross reference to a list number, dot bug makes sw/qa/complex/writer fail
On Wednesday 07 September 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: Troy, will you come up with a fix that brings sw/source/core/doc/number.cxx and sw/qa/complex/writer/CheckCrossReferences.java in sync again? I won't be able to do that until mid November due to other commitments. -- t...@troy.rollo.name - Sydney, Australia signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] fix for fdo#33960 cross reference to a list number, dot bug makes sw/qa/complex/writer fail
At least with recent git trunk builds, make subsequentcheck fails in sw with
1) checkCrossReferences(complex.writer.CheckCrossReferences)
org.junit.ComparisonFailure: set reference field format doesn't result in correct field
result expected: 1[.] but was: 1[]
at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:123)
at
complex.writer.CheckCrossReferences.checkField(CheckCrossReferences.java:120)
at
complex.writer.CheckCrossReferences.checkCrossReferences(CheckCrossReferences.java:176)
This appears to be caused by the fix for
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33960 cross reference to
a list number, dot bug, which removes the trailing . from
SwNumRule::MakeRefNumString.
The question is, is the below patch (which makes that subsequentcheck
failure go away) right in adapting the failing test to the new code, or
does this failure actually uncover unwanted side effects of the new code
(I'm esp. unsure about changing A. 1. to A 1)?
diff --git a/sw/qa/complex/writer/CheckCrossReferences.java
b/sw/qa/complex/writer/CheckCrossReferences.j
index cc7fcb1..597a14f 100644
--- a/sw/qa/complex/writer/CheckCrossReferences.java
+++ b/sw/qa/complex/writer/CheckCrossReferences.java
@@ -145,9 +145,9 @@ public class CheckCrossReferences {
final String FldResult1 = *i*;
final String FldResult2 = +b+*i*;
final String FldResult3 = -1-+b+*i*;
-final String FldResult4 = 1.;
-final String FldResult5 = 1.;
-final String FldResult6 = A. 1.;
+final String FldResult4 = 1;
+final String FldResult5 = 1;
+final String FldResult6 = A 1;
// variables for current field
com.sun.star.text.XTextField xField = null;
-Stephan
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] fix for fdo#33960 cross reference to a list number, dot bug makes sw/qa/complex/writer fail
The question is, is the below patch (which makes that subsequentcheck failure go away) right in adapting the failing test to the new code, or does this failure actually uncover unwanted side effects of the new code (I'm esp. unsure about changing A. 1. to A 1)? The approach is too simple. The first problem is that the level separator is not necessarily a . (and is configurable at each level in other word processors). Also, while it is understandable in the case described it is not necessarily the desired always especially for lists with multiple levels. When in the configuration options of a list there should be a toggle for whether to remove the final list level separation suffix in references. I don't see removing internal separators (or level prefix) and I can see that sometime a user might not want the trailing suffix removed. Neil Leathers ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] fix for fdo#33960 cross reference to a list number, dot bug makes sw/qa/complex/writer fail
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:27:07 -0300 Neil Leathers neil.r.leath...@gmail.com wrote: The approach is too simple. The first problem is that the level separator is not necessarily a . (and is configurable at each level in other word processors). Its allowed for the test to assume an default config -- as it always tests a default config. Also, while it is understandable in the case described it is not necessarily the desired always especially for lists with multiple levels. When in the configuration options of a list there should be a toggle for whether to remove the final list level separation suffix in references. I don't see removing internal separators (or level prefix) and I can see that sometime a user might not want the trailing suffix removed. Thats besides the point I think. Stephans question was: The behaviour of the numbering changed. Was that intended or is it an unintended change? The best candidate to answer that question of cause is the author of the change that caused the different behavior (cc'ing author and commiter). Best, Bjoern -- https://launchpad.net/~bjoern-michaelsen ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] fix for fdo#33960 cross reference to a list number, dot bug makes sw/qa/complex/writer fail
On Wednesday 07 September 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: final String FldResult1 = *i*; final String FldResult2 = +b+*i*; final String FldResult3 = -1-+b+*i*; -final String FldResult4 = 1.; -final String FldResult5 = 1.; -final String FldResult6 = A. 1.; +final String FldResult4 = 1; +final String FldResult5 = 1; +final String FldResult6 = A 1; The last one should be A.1 rather than A 1. The second last should be 1 rather than 1. The ule implemented was actually somewhat more complex than the simple rule described in the bug report. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
