Hi, I fully agree that the target should be to have automated tests. wo that the benefit will be limited. As for error codes/messages we could reuse/generalize what’s in place for the PDF/A validator. Bavarian test suite from pdflib also has a good set of test/result descriptions.
BR Maruan Sahyoun Am 09.12.2013 um 16:00 schrieb Timo Boehme <timo.boe...@ontochem.com>: > Hi, > > this would be a valuable resource, especially if the test can be automated - > thus we need to somehow specify the expected result (exception, warning, > result document/text) for automated processing. Maybe we should start using > error codes? > > > Best, > Timo > > > > Am 08.12.2013 15:43, schrieb Maruan Sahyoun: >> Hi, >> >> as we are handling and closing issues using PDFs provided by users of the >> library what do you think about adding these files to a test suite if these >> can be used to check for a behavior of handling specific issues. >> >> The benefit would be that we can write tests around these issues to ensure >> that forthcoming releases are still able to handle these files. >> >> An idea for a naming convention would be something like <issue number><short >> description> e.g. 1769-invalid_xref.pdf >> >> WDYT >> >> Maruan Sahyoun >> > > > -- > > Timo Boehme > OntoChem GmbH > H.-Damerow-Str. 4 > 06120 Halle/Saale > T: +49 345 4780474 > F: +49 345 4780471 > timo.boe...@ontochem.com > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > OntoChem GmbH > Geschäftsführer: Dr. Lutz Weber > Sitz: Halle / Saale > Registergericht: Stendal > Registernummer: HRB 215461 > _____________________________________________________________________ >
