Re: 8 Unit Tests Broken

[Adrian Cumiskey]

The following test still fails as part of the LayoutEngineTestSuite :-

wrapper_block.xml       Error   Expected w=14400 at position 0 but got: 0 
(element-list category=breaker)

java.lang.RuntimeException: Expected w=14400 at position 0 but got: 0 
(element-list category=breaker)
at org.apache.fop.layoutengine.ElementListCheck.fail(ElementListCheck.java:222)
at org.apache.fop.layoutengine.ElementListCheck.check(ElementListCheck.java:87)
at 
org.apache.fop.layoutengine.LayoutEngineTester.checkAll(LayoutEngineTester.java:235)
at 
org.apache.fop.layoutengine.LayoutEngineTester.runTest(LayoutEngineTester.java:182)
at 
org.apache.fop.layoutengine.LayoutEngineTestSuite$LayoutEngineTestCase.testMain(LayoutEngineTestSuite.java:219)
at 
org.apache.fop.layoutengine.LayoutEngineTestSuite$1.runTest(LayoutEngineTestSuite.java:193)

Adrian.


Andreas Delmelle wrote:
On May 13, 2008, at 12:20, Andreas Delmelle wrote:
On May 13, 2008, at 11:59, Andreas Delmelle wrote:

background-position-shorthand-test.fo    Error 
file:/home/acumiskey/workspace/tru/test/fotree/testcases/background-position-shorthand-test.fo 
Property 'background-position-vertical' expected to evaluate to 
'0mpt' but got '0.0%' (test:assert in fo:block at line #53, column #79)

java.lang.IllegalStateException: 
file:/home/acumiskey/workspace/tru/test/fotree/testcases/background-position-shorthand-test.fo 

Property 'background-position-vertical' expected to evaluate to 
'0mpt' but got '0.0%'
(test:assert in fo:block at line #53, column #79)


This one, I'm not sure, yet. Needs further investigation... I'll get 
back on this one.

Must have something to do with caching CommonBorderPaddingBackground. 
No idea why it is suddenly using 0%. This should (obviously) resolve 
to a FixedLength of 0mpt...

Decided to force the default zero value for both properties (and the 
shorthand) to absolute lengths (0pt) instead of percentages (0%). This 
makes the test pass again, and should be better for memory-consumption.

So, trunk should be stable again.

Apologies for the inconvenience.

Cheers

Andreas