On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:31:31AM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote:

Dear Günter,

Thank you for your detailed reply!

> >> > (1) revert the commit I pushed and invert the test
> This is the simplest way.

Agreed. But since similar issues will come up I think it is good to
spend time talking about the ideal solution.

> Especially, because we already have a similar case:
> diff --git a/development/autotests/invertedTests 
> b/development/autotests/invertedTests
> index 8dab991..8ee6a85 100644
> --- a/development/autotests/invertedTests
> +++ b/development/autotests/invertedTests
> @@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ Sublabel: ert
>  # Non-ASCII in ERT, fails with inputenc==ASCII (e.g. XeTeX with tex-fonts)
>  export/doc/(de|es|fr)/Additional_pdf4_texF
> +export/doc/fr/beamer_pdf4_texF

I tested Additional_pdf4 and I get the error "Error 84 returned from
iconv when converting from UCS-4LE to ascii: Invalid or incomplete
multibyte or wide character" Does that mean the character is not in a
LaTeX comment? If so, then I think they are different issues (but
related), because in the case of a comment it is possible to use a LyX
note or comment inset. In the other case it seems that ERT really is

> >> Please no. If we never interpret ERT, then this will stay inverted
> >> forever. Inverted tests are waiting for correction, at least this was
> >> what I have/had in mind.
> > I tend to agree. Something feels wrong with inverting. Unless we label
> > the issue as a LyX enhancement (and create a trac ticket) because there
> > is no way in LyX to produce LyX-readable content in this case that can
> > be exported to several different formats.
> However,
> a) this is something waiting for correction (with low priority, because
>    XeTeX + TeX-fonts is "exotic").


>    Possible changes include:
>    * do not check ERT for unsupported characters (after all, the user is
>      responsible for ERT, this "helpfull" feature stands in the way quite
>      regularely). However, there is no agreement, other developers prefer
>      checking ERT.

I think I remember the same thing---that this was discussed previously
and that the majority opinion was that ERT should be checked (even

>    * fix "inputenc" LaTeX package to allow XeTeX and set it to binary mode
>    * write a "xeinputenc" package to allow XeTeX and set it to binary mode

I don't know enough to understand this.

>    * fix http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9744 to make
>      non-TeX fonts default for compiling with XeTeX.
>      (This would not solve the test but make the problem even less urgent.)

I think this is a good point.

>    * Change the ERT-comment to a LyX note eventually

Yes, or comment inset.

> b) "inverting this test" (i.e. adding a pattern for this test to
>    invertedTests)¹ will
>    * add the "WILL_FAIL" test feature
>    * add the label "suspended"
>    * not add the label "export"
>    because the test matches the "catchall pattern" for _texF in
>    suspendedTests.
> >> > (2) change the inset for all beamer manuals.
> >> +1
> > OK I will go for this. I'll wait another day or so to see if Günter
> > disagrees.
> IMV there are more important tasks but I won't stop you if you like to go
> this way.

I agree there are more important tasks. But again let's separate the
discussion. One question is what are acceptable solutions. A separate
question is what takes more time to implement. If we agree that there
are two acceptable solutions and I choose to spend time on one of them,
for me that is OK. In some sense I think this is the nice thing (and
perhaps also the bad thing?) about open source: I don't have to spend
time on the most urgent issues. I can spend time on something because it
is fun or interesting or it is an annoying itch. I try to balance this
and I do also spend a lot of time on things that are not that fun for me
but that I think are more important.

If by "I won't stop you" you mean the same thing as "there are more
important tasks [that I should be working on]" then I think my above
paragraph explains my philosophy on that. If instead you mean that
regardless of time spent, you think that an alternative solution is
better, then we should continue discussing which is the best path.

To summarize my argument, I would say: I do not think that changing the
ERT comment into a LyX note or a comment inset makes the document less
readable. I am tempted to say it makes it *more* readable because a
comment inset signals better to the reader than ERT that the contents
are a comment, but I think I am searching too much here. In any case, my
opinion is that one additional test has a small benefit, and I do not
think there is a cost to the reader of the document. So:

  small benefit - 0 cost > 0

> Actually, only the French manual has this comment in ERT, all other
> instances (en, de, ja) just have the "\setbeamercovered{transparent}"
> LaTeX macro.

Thanks for checking this.

> If you fix the beamer manual *and* Additional.lyx, consider a
> minimal example for /autotests/export/latex/ and a pattern to
> invertedTests like

I'm not convinced that the issue in Additional.lyx is the same as this
one, as I explained above. Which ERT inset is it (LyX does not point to
the error)? If the root reason is a LaTeX comment in an ERT then I would
do as you suggest and change it for Additional.lyx also.

>  # Non-ASCII in ERT, fails with inputenc==ASCII (e.g. XeTeX with tex-fonts)
>  export/export/latex/nonASCII-ERT_pdf4_texF

OK, do you think this deserves a trac ticket to match?

Again, thank you for this discussion. Although the issue is minor, I
think the ideas behind it are important and I think we're slowly
developing a consistent philosophy that we can agree should be
represented by our ctests. For example, I agree with you that "the
readability of the document is more important than allowing more tests".


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to