Re: [lmi] PDF unit tests [Was: Integrate wxPdfDocument into lmi build system]

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:26:35 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> On 2015-08-07 16:33, Greg Chicares wrote:
GC> [...]
GC> > Probably I'll move 'wx_pdfdoc_test' out of $(unit_test_targets), which
GC> > otherwise don't depend on wx in any way. For now, it can just be a
GC> > standalone program that's built and run only upon explicit demand.
GC> > Soon, it may go away, because we can just create a premium-quote PDF
GC> > in the GUI-test suite and this tiny test will no longer serve any
GC> > purpose (I think).
GC> 
GC> For the same reasons, and some additional ones, I plan not to commit
GC> 'group_premium_pdf_gen_test' at all. It's in the code you sent to my
GC> personal email. I've built it and run it, and it succeeds--so it was
GC> useful to have this as temporary scaffolding. But it requires an input
GC> file that I usually keep in /lmi/src/lmi/ and some mortality tables
GC> that live in /opt/lmi/data/ on my machine, whereas I'm running it from
GC> a different directory altogether, so it's really more convenient for
GC> me just to build lmi and run the same steps manually.

 The files location could be changed, the problem is rather that it's
really not very useful to just verify that the PDF file exists: what if it
does but is empty? Or is truncated? Or has the wrong number of eligibles
(to take a completely random example)?

 I'd really like to have some way of testing that it contains roughly the
correct information automatically, I think this would be genuinely useful
as it's easy to miss some problems during manual inspection (the proof is
that I did miss the one above even though I did check it).

 It would also be useful, IMHO, to test reports with different numbers of
lines to check that all possible pagination cases, i.e. a single page
report, a multi-page report with the footer on the same page and on its own
page, work as expected as this is probably one of the most fragile parts.

 So while I agree that it's not useful to have this test right now, I'd
like to work on making it more useful later by adding stronger checks to
it.

 Do you think it's not worth to do this?
VZ