Re: 8 Unit Tests Broken

[Andreas Delmelle]

On May 13, 2008, at 15:24, Vincent Hennebert wrote:

FWIW: The test should pass now. I'm not 100% certain whether the  
change
is correct, but the element-list we get has the box we're looking  
for at
position 3 (index 2), so I simply skipped the first two elements  
in the
list...

I can’t help but think that something’s going wrong here. Was the test
just modified so that it passes again, or does it really reflect the
changes made in the code?

Both. What is probably still incomplete, is that the fo:wrapper  
generates a dummy InlineKnuthSequence, so that its id survives until  
area-tree generation.

Before the changes I made, this sequence would also result in an  
Inline area, which would cause a ClassCastException during the  
addAreas() phase.
Instead, the check in FlowLM was put there to filter the  
InlineKnuthSequence out, and signal an error/warning if the  
fo:wrapper was a descendant of the fo:flow.

    SEVERE: inline area not allowed under flow - ignoring

By ignoring the area, id references to the fo:wrapper were useless.

ATM, the inline-sequence remains. The position is properly wrapped by  
the parent LM, due to the small change to  
BlockStackingLM.wrapPositionElements(), which can now also handle  
elements that are sequences themselves.

Are those 2 new elements at the beginning of
the list now to be expected?

I did expect /some/ change. Seeing this inline-sequence in the  
meantime already got me looking into also overriding  
WrapperLM.getNextKnuthElements(), to generate a proper block-box in  
those cases, but the checks in the testcase would remain the same as  
they are now.

Also, the wrapper_block.xml testcase now
gives the following message twice:
    SEVERE: Could not create block pointers. FOText w/o Block  
ancestor.

I'll look into this as well. Probably a result of white-spaces that  
are unnecessarily preserved.

I don’t want to sound too much negative, I don’t really follow the
changes you’ve been doing in this area, but I’m slighty concerned. My
point simply is that if there’s something I don’t fully understand,  
I’d
rather not touch it.

No problem. You're obviously right about being cautious. OTOH, if you  
never touch it, you'll never fully understand it... ;-)


Cheers


Andreas