-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 162
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add more bibtex tests #1037
Add more bibtex tests #1037
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1037 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 44.79% 44.85% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 155 155
Lines 62607 62585 -22
==========================================
+ Hits 28043 28075 +32
+ Misses 34564 34510 -54
... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
Well, apparently, the existing code fails on Windows. It doesn't fail locally on Linux or Windows, which makes me think somehow the code is invoking UB, except I think it's UB in the C code, so no clue where it is yet. I'll spend some time trying to figure this out. |
Ah, it's not UB, I realize what's wrong I think - |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for working on this! I have a couple of requested changes that ought to be straightforward to implement, if you don't mind.
Thanks! Looks like we had a spurious test failure here, I think that we should pass with a retry. (The tectonic-on-arXiv test will just raise some failures incorrectly for a bit until we straighten out some reproducibility subtleties; see #1036) |
These test some simple error cases, I plan to rebase #1032 on this so there are more tests available to avoid regressions