On 09/07/2011 11:15 PM, Troy Rollo wrote:
On Wednesday 07 September 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Troy, will you come up with a fix that brings
sw/source/core/doc/number.cxx and
sw/qa/complex/writer/CheckCrossReferences.java in sync again?
I won't be able to do that until mid November due to
On Wednesday 07 September 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Troy, will you come up with a fix that brings
sw/source/core/doc/number.cxx and
sw/qa/complex/writer/CheckCrossReferences.java in sync again?
I won't be able to do that until mid November due to other commitments.
--
At least with recent git trunk builds, make subsequentcheck fails in sw with
1) checkCrossReferences(complex.writer.CheckCrossReferences)
org.junit.ComparisonFailure: set reference field format doesn't result in correct field
result expected: 1[.] but was: 1[]
at
The question is, is the below patch (which makes that subsequentcheck
failure go away) right in adapting the failing test to the new code, or
does this failure actually uncover unwanted side effects of the new code
(I'm esp. unsure about changing A. 1. to A 1)?
The approach is too simple.
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:27:07 -0300
Neil Leathers neil.r.leath...@gmail.com
wrote:
The approach is too simple. The first problem is that the level
separator is not necessarily a . (and is configurable at each level
in other word processors).
Its allowed for the test to assume an default config
On Wednesday 07 September 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
final String FldResult1 = *i*;
final String FldResult2 = +b+*i*;
final String FldResult3 = -1-+b+*i*;
-final String FldResult4 = 1.;
-final String FldResult5 =
