Add a test-case for bug 1292316 #12733
Conversation
It appears that the PDF document in [bug 1292316](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1292316) now renders "correctly"[1] when compared to e.g. Adobe Reader and PDFium. Most likely this bug was fixed by a *somewhat* recent patch, or patches, to the `XRef.indexObjects` method. Before just closing [bug 1292316](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1292316) as WFM, I figured that it probably can't hurt to add it as a new test-case to avoid accidentally regressing this document in the future. --- [1] Given that the XRef table is corrupt, and that we're forced to recover, there's generally speaking probably some question as to what actually constitutes "correct" in this case.
|
/botio test |
From: Bot.io (Linux m4)ReceivedCommand cmd_test from @Snuffleupagus received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://54.67.70.0:8877/e00d8ec29dd1d0f/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Windows)ReceivedCommand cmd_test from @Snuffleupagus received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://3.101.106.178:8877/bb8eed11ee3d223/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Linux m4)FailedFull output at http://54.67.70.0:8877/e00d8ec29dd1d0f/output.txt Total script time: 25.43 mins
Image differences available at: http://54.67.70.0:8877/e00d8ec29dd1d0f/reftest-analyzer.html#web=eq.log |
|
Good idea! I'll reopen the Windows bot issue. /botio makeref |
From: Bot.io (Linux m4)ReceivedCommand cmd_makeref from @timvandermeij received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://54.67.70.0:8877/0262a2567fe930d/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Linux m4)SuccessFull output at http://54.67.70.0:8877/0262a2567fe930d/output.txt Total script time: 24.43 mins
|
It appears that the PDF document in bug 1292316 now renders "correctly"[1] when compared to e.g. Adobe Reader and PDFium. Most likely this bug was fixed by a somewhat recent patch, or patches, to the
XRef.indexObjectsmethod.Before just closing bug 1292316 as WFM, I figured that it probably can't hurt to add it as a new test-case to avoid accidentally regressing this document in the future.
[1] Given that the XRef table is corrupt, and that we're forced to recover, there's generally speaking probably some question as to what actually constitutes "correct" in this case.