[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Regtest for issue 5181
From: |
Thomas Morley |
Subject: |
Re: Regtest for issue 5181 |
Date: |
Sat, 23 Sep 2017 11:56:09 +0200 |
2017-09-23 9:31 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 2017-09-22 12:22 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>>>
>>> Now things become _really_ embarrassing. Trying to come up with
>>> improvements on your regtest convinced me that this kind of
>>> syntactical feature is not served well by a graphical test featuring
>>> the typeset results.
>>>
>>> So I stole a bunch of code from the display-lily-tests.ly regtest.
Up to now I've only a vage impression what
'parse-lily-and-compute-lily-string' and #(read-hash-extend ...) does.
I'll currently not dive deeper into it until forced. ;)
>>> I am not convinced this is good either: only outputting stuff that is
>>> less than perfect, and only to the terminal (namely without any
>>> typeset output) is not nice for the printed variant of the regtests
>>> either.
Yeah, that's my main concern as well.
>>> But if there is a better choice, it would probably also
>>> warrant implementing in display-lily-tests.ly .
>>
>> for now only very few notes. I will need some more time to make my
>> mind about it, not in the middle of the night...
>>
>>
>> (define (lily-string->markup str) ...)
>> seems to be unused (same in display-lily-tests.ly) any reason not to
>> delete it?
>
> Oh. That's the problem with copy&paste jobs. I'll take a look.
>
>> I'd like to see an example for LyricText/Hyphen. Like:
>>
>> lyr = \lyricmode { foo }
>> \test "limitation" ##[ \lyr -- #]
>
> More like \test ##[ \lyricmode { \lyr -- } #] I guess?
Ofcourse. Though, this does not cause any printed output (like the
other test-cases without settings for the optional 'harmless').
Wouldn't it make sense to print something for fully working cases as well?
Doing
\test "equal" ##[ \lyricmode { \lyr -- } #]
returns:
warning: Test equal: unexpected.
[...]
Throwing a warning, because something works is a little strange, though.
Why not put out something at the lines of
(ly:message (*location*) "Test equal: already working. <formated-args>")
?
>
>> This wish is triggered by an ongoing thread at the german forum:
>> https://lilypondforum.de/index.php/topic,150.msg982.html#msg982
>
> Perfectly reasonable, and it does show that the changed test framework
> not bothering to typeset the actual examples makes it easy to add
> relevant test cases without wracking one's brain.
Indeed.
Cheers,
Harm
- Re: \mark and slur, (continued)
- Re: \mark and slur, David Kastrup, 2017/09/16
- Re: \mark and slur, David Kastrup, 2017/09/16
- Re: \mark and slur, Thomas Morley, 2017/09/16
- Re: \mark and slur, David Kastrup, 2017/09/16
- Re: \mark and slur, Thomas Morley, 2017/09/18
- Re: \mark and slur, David Kastrup, 2017/09/18
- Regtest for issue 5181 (was: \mark and slur), David Kastrup, 2017/09/22
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181 (was: \mark and slur), Thomas Morley, 2017/09/22
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181, David Kastrup, 2017/09/23
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181, David Kastrup, 2017/09/23
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181,
Thomas Morley <=
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181, Thomas Morley, 2017/09/23
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181, David Kastrup, 2017/09/23
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181, David Kastrup, 2017/09/23
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181, Thomas Morley, 2017/09/23
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181, David Kastrup, 2017/09/23
- Re: Regtest for issue 5181 (was: \mark and slur), Thomas Morley, 2017/09/23
- Re: \mark and slur, David Kastrup, 2017/09/16
- How near is 2.20? [was: Re: \mark and slur], Malte Meyn, 2017/09/14
- Re: How near is 2.20? [was: Re: \mark and slur], David Kastrup, 2017/09/14
Re: \mark and slur, Gianmaria Lari, 2017/09/14