Re: [frogs] Regression test file for Trackers 714 and 832

[Patrick McCarty <pnorcks@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ian,

Your patch is saved in ASCII, but it should be saved in UTF-8.  I'll
provide some more comments for you below.

On 2009-11-16, Ian Hulin wrote:
> Ooops.
> 
> Here's the patch this time
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.

[patch follows]

> From 1d4349effc5fb6fc865ac2be558fc61d44e5bb73 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ian Hulin <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:58:55 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] Trackers 832 and 714 - add regression test for output file names containing
>  extended Latin accents and other UTF-8 characters.

Can you make sure the commit summary is concise enough to fit on one
line?  I would recommend something like

  Add regression test for issues 832 and 714.

and after adding two newlines, write and more verbose description, if
necessary, underneath the commit summary.

> Signed-off-by: Ian Hulin <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  input/regression/output-filenames-with-accents.ly |  190 +++++++++++++++++++++

I think it would be better if this regtest were named
"output-suffix.ly", because that is the only thing you are testing.

>  1 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 input/regression/output-filenames-with-accents.ly
> 
> diff --git a/input/regression/output-filenames-with-accents.ly b/input/regression/output-filenames-with-accents.ly
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..0625b2f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/input/regression/output-filenames-with-accents.ly
> @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
> +\version "2.13.5"
> +
> +\header {
> +  texidoc = "Using extended Latin characters like ?? in
> +  output file-names should not cause any problems with
> +  backend processors.  We test this here by using such
> +  characters in output-suffix"
> +  dedication = "Lilypond Regression Test"
> +  title = "M?? Vlast"
> +  subtitle = "Symphonic Tone Poem Cycle"
> +  instrument = "Orchestra"
> +  composer = "Bed??ich ??metana"
> +  opus = "Opus 64"

Is it really necessary to add an excerpt from an actual composition
when you are just testing output-suffix to make sure it works with
various UTF-8 characters?

> +}
> +\version "2.13.5"

You already have a \version statement at the beginning of the file.

> +
> +
> +globalI = {
> +  \key c \major
> +  \time 4/4
> +}
> +
> +globalII = {
> +  \key e \minor
> +  \time 6/8
> +}
> +globalIII = {
> +  \key f \minor
> +  \time 4/4
> +}
> +globalIV = {
> +  \key f \major
> +  \time 4/4
> +}
> +globalV = {
> +  \key d \minor
> +  \time 4/4
> +}
> +globalVI = {
> +  \key d \minor
> +  \time 4/4
> +}
> +
> +violinmI = \relative c'' {
> +  \globalI
> +  c4 c c c |
> +}
> +"output-suffix" = "Vy??ehrad"

For consistency, I would recommend writing this as

  #(define output-suffix "...")

instead.  IMO, it's cleaner and this is how it's used in the
documentation.  The question marks will go away once you have saved
the file in UTF-8.

[snip]

In general, I think it would be better to have a smaller regression
test that focuses *only* on the functionality of output-suffix.
Something like

  \version "2.13.5"

  \header {
    texidoc = "description"
  }

  #(define output-suffix "áâéŅ")
  \book {
    \score {
      \new Staff \relative c' {
	c1
      }
      \layout { }
      \midi { }
    }
  }

would be very minimal.  It looks like you want to exercise certain
UTF-8 characters, so you can use those instead.  Also, if you do want
to use 6 \book blocks, writing just one note per \book block will keep
the regtest short.

HTH,
Patrick

---
----
Join the Frogs!