mirror of
https://git.lyx.org/repos/lyx.git
synced 2024-11-21 17:51:03 +00:00
Add Georg's idea for lyx2lyx tests to TestsToDo
These tests would be like the tex2lyx tests we have and would have the clear advantage of not depending on LyX.
This commit is contained in:
parent
646be95979
commit
8f1f823351
@ -1,6 +1,30 @@
|
||||
This file describes tests that might be useful to implement.
|
||||
|
||||
- lyx2lyx tests
|
||||
-----
|
||||
lyx2lyx tests
|
||||
|
||||
One way to implemente tests of lyx2lyx is to do a roundtrip lyx2lyx
|
||||
conversion (e.g. with the previous major release format) and then compare the
|
||||
exported .tex files before and after. Ideally there should be no change.
|
||||
|
||||
Georg detailed a clearly better idea, but would take more time to implement:
|
||||
|
||||
If you want to test lyx2lyx, then I would strongly advise to test lyx2lyx
|
||||
alone, without LyX. This would be exactly the same procedure as we do with
|
||||
tex2lyx: For each test case, keep the expected output of lyx2lyx as
|
||||
reference, and verify once (when creating the test), that LyX will produce
|
||||
the correct output. When testing, do only compare the lyx2lyx output against
|
||||
the refernce. If you keep LyX (and even pdflatex) in the chain, then you
|
||||
will be testing lyx2lyx, LyX and pdflatex at the same time, which will
|
||||
increase the probability of failing tests, and the search for the cause will
|
||||
be more difficult.
|
||||
|
||||
Finally I have a general remark: The forward conversion in lyx2lyx is much
|
||||
more important than the backward conversion, and the only one we guarantee
|
||||
to work for each format step. The backward conversion is only implemented
|
||||
for those cases where it is possible with reasonable effort. If we start to
|
||||
test lyx2lyx, then we should start with the forward conversion.
|
||||
|
||||
For (possibly) more discussion, see:
|
||||
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=n15uao%24upk%241%40ger.gmane.org
|
||||
-----
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user