maven-doxia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lukas Theussl <>
Subject Re: Confluence module outstanding issues...
Date Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:27:19 GMT

Dave Syer wrote:
> I already took that approach with the patch I submitted for DOXIA-169.  The
> test actually goes beyond the one for the APT version.  Also, the APT one
> uses AptSink to accept output and make assertions about it.  There is no
> ConfluenceSink so I used TextSink - which I think is a better approach
> anyway because I wouldn't want the test case to tightly couple the *Parser
> and *Sink.

Absolutely. I think in the apt case, the apt sink is only used to test 
some special features, like macros, but in general, testing a parser 
should not depend on a particular sink, and vice versa (see eg 
DOXIA-100, DOXIA-101 for cases we have fixed already).

> I can't write the whole test suite in one go, and I'm not sure why that
> would help (all the tests would fail to start with), but we can do it bit by
> bit if you like, one feature at a time.

I mainly meant that it would help me to get familiar with the confluence 
format. It would also be good to have a standard test document for each 
parser, since then we can compare the parsing output with any arbitrary 
  test sink, eg the TextSink.

I don't see why all the tests would fail first, because the 
AbstractParserTest by itself doesn't assert anything (apart some basic 
well-formedness), it only parses the document so as long as parsing is 
fine, you won't break anything.


> Lukas Theussl-3 wrote:
>>Hi Dave,
>>I am a currently active doxia committer but I'm not really familiar with 
>>the confluence module. If you submit some patches I will review them, 
>>what would help me most as a start would be a complete confluence test 
>>model test.confluence, to replace the current one in 
>>src/test/resources/. It should produce the same text output as the 
>>corresponding test files test.apt and test.xml in the apt and xdoc
>>Dave Syer wrote:
>>>Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module right
>>>Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but no-one seems
>>>be reviewing them, or working on them.  Some are really trivial.

View raw message