On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 09:40:36PM +0200, Günter Milde wrote: > On 15.09.20, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 05:53:56PM +0200, Günter Milde wrote: > > > On 13.09.20, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 04:53:15PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > > > > Am Sun, 13 Sep 2020 10:33:20 -0400 > > > > > schrieb Scott Kostyshak <skost...@lyx.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:43:31AM +0100, José Abílio Matos wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 13, 2020 5:42:55 AM WEST Scott Kostyshak > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On current master I get the following: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ lyx -e lyx20x Beamer.lyx && lyx Beamer.20.lyx > > > > > > > > Warning: Malformed LyX document: Missing layout name on line > > > > > > > > 1876 > > > > > > > > Warning: Malformed LyX document: Missing layout name on line > > > > > > > > 3053 > > > > > > > > Warning: Malformed LyX document: Missing layout name on line > > > > > > > > 4716 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason this might be a regression is that if I first export > > > > > > > > to 2.3.x > > > > > > > > format, and then in 2.3.0 I do the roundtrip with 2.0.x format, > > > > > > > > I do not > > > > > > > > get those warnings: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ lyx -e lyx23x Beamer.lyx > > > > > > > > $ lyx230 -e lyx20x Beamer.23.lyx && lyx230 Beamer.23.20.lyx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First the general consideration: > > > > > > > LyX 2.1 was the version where Jürgen's overhaul of the beamer > > > > > > > layout was > > > > > > > implemented. I like and I prefer it to the previous version but > > > > > > > this change > > > > > > > implied a significant change from the previous layout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conversion from lyx 2.0 format (from a beamer layout) to 2.1 > > > > > > > is a tricky > > > > > > > issue. The reversion is even more difficult and is done on a best > > > > > > > effort > > > > > > > basis. > > > > > > > The round trip for a beamer layout, 2.1 -> 2.0 -> 2.1 is useless > > > > > > > in practical > > > > > > > terms. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like this test is a good candidate to be inverted (i.e., > > > > > > tell the > > > > > > tests we expect it to fail). It might not be worth the time to > > > > > > investigate. > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > I did a bisect and the "Malformed LyX document" messages begin starting > > > > with a151b274. Günter, can you reproduce? To reproduce, just open the > > > > attached file on master. > > > > > > I can reproduce. > > > > > > > > > > It's possible that there was a problem before but it's just that the > > > > message "Malformed LyX document" was not emitted. Günter, do you know if > > > > that's the case? If so, we should just invert this test and forget about > > > > it. > > > > > > I can't see a missing layout on the given lines in the file you sent. > > > > > > OTOH, it contains 60 lines with "\begin_layout " and no name! > > > I don't know whether this is a bug or a feature, though. > > > Sounds good. Let's just forget about this issue and invert the test? I > > have the feeling it's not worth the time. > > Agreed.
I'll invert the two tests. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
