Re: [Boost-docs] Making Boost Doc builds more robust

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Making Boost Doc builds more robust
From: Daniel James (daniel_james_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-03 19:19:46

2008/12/3 John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]>:
>
> OK, I've committed the changes to the quickbook testing Jamfiles - including
> two new "expected fail" tests which currently fail since quickbook doesn't
> return an error.  There are probably other things that should be included in
> the list of hard errors as well: I remember being caught out by invalid
> templates in the past (typo in the template name, or wrong number or args).

Quickbook now returns an error code for existing error messages, but
it turns out that quickbook doesn't treat a template name typo as an
error, so that doesn't fail at the moment (although you'll get an
incorrect number of arguments error if your template has arguments). I
assume it's okay to change it so that it fails? I'll also write some
more tests, as I should test every error message.

Also, I'm not dealing with post process errors yet as I've never
looked at that part of quickbook. It looks like it'll be pretty easy
to deal with.

Daniel