You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to doxia-dev@maven.apache.org by Dave Syer <da...@hotmail.com> on 2007/10/24 19:08:20 UTC
Confluence module outstanding issues...
Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module right now?
Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but no-one seems to
be reviewing them, or working on them. Some are really trivial.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Confluence-module-outstanding-issues...-tf4685061.html#a13388272
Sent from the Doxia - dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Confluence module outstanding issues...
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
Forgot to mention: for a confluence sink there is a feature request open
(DOXIA-124), any interest in writing one? :)
-Lukas
Lukas Theussl wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>> modules.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Lukas
>>>
>>> Dave Syer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module right
>>>> now? Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but
>>>> no-one seems
>>>> to
>>>> be reviewing them, or working on them. Some are really trivial.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Confluence module outstanding issues...
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
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
>
>
> 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
>>modules.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>-Lukas
>>
>>Dave Syer wrote:
>>
>>>Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module right
>>>now?
>>>Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but no-one seems
>>>to
>>>be reviewing them, or working on them. Some are really trivial.
>>
>>
>
Re: Confluence module outstanding issues...
Posted by Dave Syer <da...@hotmail.com>.
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.
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.
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
> modules.
>
> Cheers,
> -Lukas
>
> Dave Syer wrote:
>> Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module right
>> now?
>> Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but no-one seems
>> to
>> be reviewing them, or working on them. Some are really trivial.
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Confluence-module-outstanding-issues...-tf4685061.html#a13404319
Sent from the Doxia - dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Confluence module outstanding issues...
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
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 modules.
Cheers,
-Lukas
Dave Syer wrote:
> Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module right now?
> Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but no-one seems to
> be reviewing them, or working on them. Some are really trivial.
Re: Confluence module outstanding issues...
Posted by Dave Syer <da...@hotmail.com>.
I attached a patch to DOXIA-169. It's still unassigned, so go ahead and
apply it.
vmassol wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Dave Syer wrote:
>
>>
>> Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module
>> right now?
>> Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but no-one
>> seems to
>> be reviewing them, or working on them. Some are really trivial.
>
> I guess the answer is nobody is currently active on it and that we're
> all responsible for working on it and fixing outstanding issues...
>
> If you know how to fix some issues patches would be welcome. I'm also
> interested in fixing it and I can apply patches.
>
> For me the general question is whether we should continue using a
> hand-written confluence parser or rather switch to a javacc based one
> as the wikimodel project is doing.
>
> -Vincent
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Confluence-module-outstanding-issues...-tf4685061.html#a13394530
Sent from the Doxia - dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Confluence module outstanding issues...
Posted by Vincent Massol <vi...@massol.net>.
Hi Dave,
On Oct 24, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Dave Syer wrote:
>
> Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module
> right now?
> Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but no-one
> seems to
> be reviewing them, or working on them. Some are really trivial.
I guess the answer is nobody is currently active on it and that we're
all responsible for working on it and fixing outstanding issues...
If you know how to fix some issues patches would be welcome. I'm also
interested in fixing it and I can apply patches.
For me the general question is whether we should continue using a
hand-written confluence parser or rather switch to a javacc based one
as the wikimodel project is doing.
-Vincent
Re: Confluence module outstanding issues...
Posted by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>.
Dave Syer wrote:
> Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module right now?
> Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but no-one seems to
> be reviewing them, or working on them. Some are really trivial.
I'm one of the active developers on doxia. I haven't had time to look
into your issues, because I'm working on getting a new doxia release out
the door. When that is done I have a few plugin release to work through.
After that I'll have some time.
As Vincent said, issues with patches (and test cases) have a much higher
chance of being fixed.
--
Dennis Lundberg