Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Making Boost Doc builds more robust
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-04 10:15:35
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).
>> One more thing - quickbook-fail-test doesn't run again if the test
>> is changed.
BTW, just in case you hadn't noticed, the existing
quickbook-template-test-case is now failing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:40 UTC