testing Fop

[Fotis Jannidis <Fo...@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>]

I am thinking about how we could automate testing Fop. 
Probably we need a set of fo and pdf files, each of them just testing on object and/or 
one property. If somebody has new code, he calls an Ant script which produces a new 
set of pdf files and then the script calls a task which compares the new pdf files with the 
old ones, giving a warning, if there are any differences (the same could be done for any 
other renderer which produces output files). If some larger changes in Fop occur, 
which change to structure of every output file, we just build a new standard set. 
This would avoid a 'manual' comparison of old and new versions. 
And we would have something like a practical tutorial on xsl:fo.
Is this a sound approach? Any ideas or enhancements?
Fotis

Probably I should wait with this for the time after the shift to xsl 2000. 

Re: tutorial ( was Re: testing Fop )

[Sean Champ <sy...@email.msn.com>]

if I can ever dig my heels into getting CVS working on this computer (and
the emacs front-end for it), and can grab the code and actually  /use/ fop
for once,

   I'd be interested in working on the tutorial.


there's already some good information that's been posted, towards that.

  i.e.:
                 the history of pdf



( and thanks to everyone for the good info!  )




and I'm a beginner at Java, too, so this is a "learn by doing" experience :)




-- sean



----- Original Message -----
From: "Fotis Jannidis" <Fo...@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
To: <fo...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 6:05 AM
Subject: testing Fop


> I am thinking about how we could automate testing Fop.
> Probably we need a set of fo and pdf files, each of them just testing on
object and/or
> one property. If somebody has new code, he calls an Ant script which
produces a new
> set of pdf files and then the script calls a task which compares the new
pdf files with the
> old ones, giving a warning, if there are any differences (the same could
be done for any
> other renderer which produces output files). If some larger changes in Fop
occur,
> which change to structure of every output file, we just build a new
standard set.
> This would avoid a 'manual' comparison of old and new versions.
> And we would have something like a practical tutorial on xsl:fo.
> Is this a sound approach? Any ideas or enhancements?
> Fotis
>
> Probably I should wait with this for the time after the shift to xsl 2000.