Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
On 5/26/09 3:48 PM, "Neil Puttock" wrote: > 2009/5/25 Andrew Hawryluk : > >> Yes, I'll take a look at it. Thanks, Neil for catching those! > > No problem. > > I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier; though I'd taken a cursory look at > the patch (and noticed the backquote issue), I didn't expect it to be > committed so soon. I'll wait longer in the future. My plan has been: 1) If it's part of lilypond, it needs review, so I'll make sure it gets reviewed. 2) If it's part of the documentation, I can commit it. 3) If it's part of convert-ly, if it's demonstrated to work, I'll go ahead and commit it. I'll eliminate category 3, and move it to category 1. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
On 5/26/09 3:55 PM, "Neil Puttock" wrote: > 2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen : > >> On a more general note, do you have any suggestions for how to check >> convert-ly rules? For code, we have regression tests. For convert-ly, as >> far as I know, we have nothing. Should we be establishing convert-ly >> regression tests? > > I'm not sure how that would work. Convert rules are unlikely to break > unless there are drastic changes between Python versions, so I think > the best option is to keep each rule as specific as possible and test > it thoroughly before it's committed. I guess the question then becomes what "thoroughly" means. In this particular example, we had a demonstration that the rule worked on a particular set of input. With your experience, you were able to identify a couple of cases where it wouldn't work. I obviously missed both of those cases, and hence committed a broken patch. I'd like to avoid that in the future. I guess committing a patch that only partially solves a convert-ly problem is not completely devastating to the project. It doesn't break lilypond. And it improves the convert-ly behavior for some cases. For the ones it didn't work for, a new bug report would eventually be filed, and then hopefully fixed. Anyway, I'd like to see if there's some systematic way we could avoid having this problem in the future that doesn't depend on having Neil's eagle eye. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen : > On a more general note, do you have any suggestions for how to check > convert-ly rules? For code, we have regression tests. For convert-ly, as > far as I know, we have nothing. Should we be establishing convert-ly > regression tests? I'm not sure how that would work. Convert rules are unlikely to break unless there are drastic changes between Python versions, so I think the best option is to keep each rule as specific as possible and test it thoroughly before it's committed. Regards, Neil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
2009/5/25 Andrew Hawryluk : > Yes, I'll take a look at it. Thanks, Neil for catching those! No problem. I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier; though I'd taken a cursory look at the patch (and noticed the backquote issue), I didn't expect it to be committed so soon. Regards, Neil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > > > > On 5/24/09 4:49 AM, "Neil Puttock" wrote: > >> 2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen : >>> Thanks, Applied. >> >> Unfortunately, there are two serious flaws here: >> >> - keySignature alists which aren't backquoted (e.g., the example in >> the bug tracker) will be ignored >> >> - entries of the form (notename . alteration) are mangled: >> >> \set Staff.keySignature = #'((0 . 2) (1 . 2) (4 . 2)) >> >> -> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 2) . ,SEMI-SHARP) >> ((2 . 4) . ,SHARP)) >> >> Less seriously, the two conversion functions appear to be identical >> apart from the different dictionaries for alterations. Would it be >> possible to use a single `fixKS' function with the dictionaries passed >> as an argument to cut down on the duplication? > > > Thanks for catching this, Neil. > > Andrew, I've reverted the patch. Could you rewrite it to fix these issues? Yes, I'll take a look at it. Thanks, Neil for catching those! Won't be this week, but I'll keep you posted. Andrew ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 07:14:28AM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > > Graham, I added a comment to the bugtracker, and tried to change the status, > but I couldn't find a way to do it? Do I have access to change status? You have the same access as Valentin, and he can do this stuff. To change the status, you need "add a comment" (even if you don't want to leave a comment), then select the Status drop-down box. > On a more general note, do you have any suggestions for how to check > convert-ly rules? For code, we have regression tests. For convert-ly, as > far as I know, we have nothing. Should we be establishing convert-ly > regression tests? I hope think that we won't have so many convert-ly rules that this become necessary. Certainly at the moment I think it would take more work than it would be worth. If we ever get a dedicated convert-ly person (another unfilled job for years *sigh*), then this could be a good idea. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
On 5/24/09 4:49 AM, "Neil Puttock" wrote: > 2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen : >> Thanks, Applied. > > Unfortunately, there are two serious flaws here: > > - keySignature alists which aren't backquoted (e.g., the example in > the bug tracker) will be ignored > > - entries of the form (notename . alteration) are mangled: > > \set Staff.keySignature = #'((0 . 2) (1 . 2) (4 . 2)) > > -> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 2) . ,SEMI-SHARP) > ((2 . 4) . ,SHARP)) > > Less seriously, the two conversion functions appear to be identical > apart from the different dictionaries for alterations. Would it be > possible to use a single `fixKS' function with the dictionaries passed > as an argument to cut down on the duplication? Thanks for catching this, Neil. Andrew, I've reverted the patch. Could you rewrite it to fix these issues? Graham, I added a comment to the bugtracker, and tried to change the status, but I couldn't find a way to do it? Do I have access to change status? Neil, On a more general note, do you have any suggestions for how to check convert-ly rules? For code, we have regression tests. For convert-ly, as far as I know, we have nothing. Should we be establishing convert-ly regression tests? Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
2009/5/24 Carl D. Sorensen : > Thanks, Applied. Unfortunately, there are two serious flaws here: - keySignature alists which aren't backquoted (e.g., the example in the bug tracker) will be ignored - entries of the form (notename . alteration) are mangled: \set Staff.keySignature = #'((0 . 2) (1 . 2) (4 . 2)) -> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 2) . ,SEMI-SHARP) ((2 . 4) . ,SHARP)) Less seriously, the two conversion functions appear to be identical apart from the different dictionaries for alterations. Would it be possible to use a single `fixKS' function with the dictionaries passed as an argument to cut down on the duplication? Regards, Neil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
On 5/23/09 8:26 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 05:20:56PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: >> Can you change the status of 708 to fixed in 2.13.1? And verify, at your >> convenience? > > Actually, the idea is that the programmer (or comitter) would > change the status to fixed, and Valentin would verify it when > 2.13.1 GUB is released. OK. I thought that only Valentin changed the status. If committers are allowed to change the status, I'll do that in the future. > > For 708, I've changed the status to fixed. Thanks, Graham! Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
On 5/23/09 8:39 PM, "Patrick McCarty" wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Graham Percival > wrote: >> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 05:20:56PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: >>> Can you change the status of 708 to fixed in 2.13.1? And verify, at your >>> convenience? >> >> Actually, the idea is that the programmer (or comitter) would >> change the status to fixed, and Valentin would verify it when >> 2.13.1 GUB is released. >> >> For 708, I've changed the status to fixed. > > I don't see the patch on git master. Did you push the patch, Carl? I did, but I had a network problem so it didn't finish. It's there now. Thanks, Carl > > -Patrick > > --- > > > Join the Frogs! > ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 05:20:56PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: >> Can you change the status of 708 to fixed in 2.13.1? And verify, at your >> convenience? > > Actually, the idea is that the programmer (or comitter) would > change the status to fixed, and Valentin would verify it when > 2.13.1 GUB is released. > > For 708, I've changed the status to fixed. I don't see the patch on git master. Did you push the patch, Carl? -Patrick ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 05:20:56PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > Can you change the status of 708 to fixed in 2.13.1? And verify, at your > convenience? Actually, the idea is that the programmer (or comitter) would change the status to fixed, and Valentin would verify it when 2.13.1 GUB is released. For 708, I've changed the status to fixed. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] patch for issue 708
Thanks, Applied.
Valentin,
Can you change the status of 708 to fixed in 2.13.1? And verify, at your
convenience?
Thanks,
Carl
On 5/22/09 9:11 PM, "Andrew Hawryluk" wrote:
> This patch will allow convert-ly to process this:
>
> \version "2.11.0"
>
> {
> c d'4 ees
> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((1 . 4) . 2) ((1 . 3) . 2) ((3 . 3) 2))
>
> f^"some text"
> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((1 . 4) . -2)
> ((1 . 3) . -4))
> }
>
>
> and output this:
>
> convert-ly (GNU LilyPond) 2.13.1
> Processing `test.ly'...
> Applying conversion: 2.11.2, 2.11.3, 2.11.5, 2.11.6, 2.11.10, 2.11.11,
> 2.11.13, 2.11.15, 2.11.23, 2.11.35, 2.11.38, 2.11.46, 2.11.48,
> 2.11.50, 2.11.51, 2.11.52, 2.11.53, 2.11.55, 2.11.57, 2.11.60,
> 2.11.61, 2.11.62, 2.11.64, 2.12.0, 2.12.3, 2.13.0,
> Not smart enough to convert Staff.keySignature - the alist is no
> longer in reversed order.
> 2.13.1
> \version "2.13.1"
>
> {
> c d'4 ees
> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((1 . 4) . ,SHARP)
> ((1 . 3) . ,SHARP)
> ((3 . 3) . ,SHARP))
>
> f^"some text"
> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((1 . 4) . ,FLAT)
> ((1 . 3) . ,DOUBLE-FLAT))
> }
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
