Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Making Boost Doc builds more robust
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-04 00:27:48
Daniel James wrote:
> 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.
Yeah please do. Thank you for working on it!
> 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.
It should be easy :-) That part is mostly to canonical-ize the output
so that I can do the tests using simple line-by-line compare. It is
possible to bypass that, or perhaps use a better post utility for
tidying up the XML. Feel free to do as you want.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:40 UTC