On 05/14/2018 02:55 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Freitag, den 11.05.2018, 21:44 -0600 schrieb Joel Kulesza: >> LyX Developers, >> >> As I'm writing my dissertation, I've been using LyX 2.2.3 but today >> decided to try migrating it to 2.3.0. Upon doing so, I encountered >> what appears to be a regression (or else I've been doing something >> invalid all along that 2.2.3 accepts without complaint). > I get the same problem with 2.2.3. It is a mystery to me why this works > for you.
I checked with 2.2.3 and didn't see this problem. I thought it was due to some code's having been moved as part of the biblatex stuff that the bug got revealed. That's why I initially thought this might be tied to some of that: not that the biblatex stuff caused the bug, but that it revealed it. But I'd have to check again. >> I cannot make the document available but I have a not-quite-MWE >> available that I hope you could work with to see if you can reproduce >> what I'm seeing with LyX 2.2.3/2.3.0 on two separate computers (macOS >> 10.13.4 and OS X 10.11.6). If this can be reproduced and someone can >> help me characterize this, I'm happy to file an item in the tracker. >> >> Steps to reproduce: >> Clone https://github.com/jkulesza/UMich_Dissertation_LyX and checkout >> the "lyx_mwe" branch. >> Open dissertation.lyx in LyX 2.2.3. Render. This should succeed. >> Right-click chapter_01.lyx -> Edit. Render. This should succeed. >> Exit. >> Open dissertation.lyx in LyX 2.3.0. Render. This should succeed. >> Right-click chapter_01.lyx -> Edit. Render. This should fail with >> the attached regarding being unable to find my .bst file. >> At this point, I'm unsure where the problem lies (if it is indeed a >> problem) so anything I'd file in the tracker is no more help that >> what I'm filing here. >> >> As always, your help and time is appreciated! > The story is long and complex. If you are not interested in the > background but only in what I think the bug here is, jump to the last > paragraph. > > [....] > > In fact, the attached patch fixes the issue with Joel's test files for > me. It strikes me more logical than what we have now, but since I know > very less about the cloning procedure, I am sure I miss something > fundamental that is the reason of how cloning is done now. > > Riki, you are more familiar with this part of the code, so I am looking > forward to your comments. I've been thinking about this, too, and had come to a somewhat similar conclusion, though not with nearly as much detail. I.e., it seemed to me that there was something wrong with how the parents were being assigned when we clone. Unfortunately, there is a reason that we clone from the master: There may be macros defined there that are needed in the child. (See 2d6173d8103.) It may be that we should have said that wasn't a bug: If you view only the child, then you shouldn't expect macros defined outside it to work. Maybe the include_only support allows people to do what they were trying to do here by viewing only the child? It seems to me that, in some ways, this is tied up with different understandings people have of the master-child relationship, and what it means to view "only the child". Riki
