Hi, I compared the current poi-ooxml-schema-jar-file with ones from previous versions 3.11beta2-20140822, 3.10.1-20140818, 3.9-20121203 and none had these files included, so it seems this is nothing added by recent changes, as far as I see the packaging happens this way since POI uses this split aproach.
Did this test run with previous versions? Dominik. On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Dominik Stadler <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, I was too quick, the code takes that into account already, so > likely not the problem after all... :) > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Dominik Stadler <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I think I find a possible reason in OOXMLite.java: >> >> boolean isTest = TestCase.class.isAssignableFrom(testclass); >> >> This only selects classes that derive from TestCase, however we now >> use junit4 in some places and thus have classes that don't do this, >> but rather use the @Test annotation without any common base class. We >> will need to handle that case as well, let me give it a try... >> >> Very good catch, btw! >> >> Dominik. >> >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Thank you, Dominik. >>> >>> +1 to failing early. >>> >>> Thank you! I thought of this earlier (based on the list discussion of >>> org.apache.poi.poifs.crypt.TestSignatureInfo, which I commented out for >>> now). I just rechecked, and I'm seeing very few inner classes in the impl >>> subdirectories: >>> >>> Org.openxmlformats.schemas.*.x2006.*.impl.* >>> >>> I do see CTFFDataImpl$1CheckBoxList.class, and I am seeing inner classes >>> above the impl directories. >>> >>> Let me know if you are seeing something different. I have no doubt that >>> this might be user error :). >>> >>> Thank you, again! >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dominik Stadler [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 12:33 PM >>> To: POI Developers List >>> Subject: Re: Last call for 3.11 beta 3! >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Did any tests fail when the "compile-ooxml-lite" ant-target was >>> executed? This is only visible in the build output as the build does >>> not stop if that happens and it might lead to missing classes, if the >>> tests do not get that far... I don't think there is a big chance that >>> this is the reason, but it's worth a check anyway. >>> >>> We probably should fail the build when tests are failing inside >>> OOXMLLite, will likely cause a few more test failures, but will make >>> the resulting jars a tiny bit more predictable... >>> >>> Dominik. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Ummm... >>>> >>>> I tried to integrate beta3 into Tika, and I noticed that a handful of >>>> inner classes are missing from the poi-ooxml-schemas.jar. Did we change >>>> something in the building of the schemas jar that would explain this? Or >>>> did we remove tests or test files that used to exercise the inner classes >>>> and therefore lead to their inclusion in the schemas jar? Or, most >>>> likely, did I botch something in the integration with Tika? >>>> >>>> Some examples: >>>> org/openxmlformats/schemas/officeDocument/x2006/main/impl/CTPropertiesImpl$1PropertyList >>>> org/openxmlformats/schemas/presentationml/x2006/main/impl/CTSlideIdListImpl$1SldIdList >>>> org/openxmlformats/schemas/wordprocessingml/x2006/main/impl/CTPImpl$1BookmarkStartList >>>> >>>> I was able to get the schemas jar builder to add in the first by adding an >>>> empty test: >>>> + >>>> + public void testCustom2() throws Exception { >>>> + OPCPackage pkg = OPCPackage.open( >>>> + >>>> _ssSamples.openResourceAsStream("ExcelWithAttachments.xlsm") >>>> + ); >>>> + XSSFWorkbook wb = new XSSFWorkbook(pkg); >>>> + for (CTProperty prop : >>>> wb.getProperties().getCustomProperties().getUnderlyingProperties().getPropertyList( >>>> )) { >>>> //no-op >>>> + } >>>> + } >>>> >>>> Do we need to do this kind of thing for the other missing inner classes? >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Allison, Timothy B. [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 8:35 AM >>>> To: POI Developers List >>>> Subject: RE: Last call for 3.11 beta 3! >>>> >>>> Nick, >>>> I'll run trunk (beta3) against govdocs1 this morning and compare with >>>> beta2. Govdocs1 has very few ooxml files, but it might be useful for the >>>> older formats. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Nick Burch [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 6:57 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Last call for 3.11 beta 3! >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> There's one bug I really wanted to fix before 3.11 beta 3, but it looks >>>> like it's actually much more complex than I thought, and I may have to >>>> abandon the plan to fix it before the beta... >>>> >>>> Either way, I'm aiming to roll the 3.11 beta 3 release candidate in about >>>> 18 hours. So, last call for commits! >>>> >>>> >>>> For anyone not a committer, who wants to see something make it into 3.11 >>>> final: >>>> * If you have a patch, make sure it applies on trunk, all tests pass with >>>> it applied, and your changes come with unit tests >>>> * If you use a patch, report if it applies (or not) on trunk, and add any >>>> unit tests it might be missing >>>> * If you care about a bug, make sure it has all the information / files / >>>> etc to reproduce it, and if possible includes a unit test showing it >>>> * If you can spot a documentation issue, propose some new text! >>>> * If you can spot a problem with an example, report it, and if possible >>>> include a patch to fix it! >>>> * If you see an area that isn't clear that you've worked your way through, >>>> please propose a new example or some expanded documentation! >>>> * If you care about the project, and have no current issues of your own, >>>> please dive in and help with something reported by someone else! >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
