xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <dev.jerem...@greenmail.ch>
Subject Re: How to visually test for bugs in the renderers
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:56:30 GMT
I forgot to mention that this application might be equally interesting
for Batik. And now that I thought about this, I remember that Batik does
image comparison. Maybe something could be borrowed from there.

On 17.06.2005 15:43:20 Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> I've just found a bug in our renderers that causes nested
> block-containers to be painted in the wrong position (vertically). The
> area tree is fine, so it doesn't make sense to write a layout engine
> test case. Now would be the time for visual comparison. With the bitmap
> renderer we could do that very easily but that would only test the
> Java2D renderer, not the others. In the example I attached the PDF and
> Java2D renderers actually render the document differently, but both
> wrong. :-)
> We really need that visual comparator which consists of:
> - Generic JUnit TestCase implementation that does visual checks similar
> to how I implemented the layout engine tests.
> - Converters from PDF, PS etc. to bitmaps (for example, calling
> GhostScript externally) [1]
> - Component that compares two bitmaps and creates a "diff bitmap".
> - Helper application (with GUI) which makes it possible to quickly go
> through many test results. For each test it would show the reference
> bitmap, the actual bitmap and the diff bitmap side by side. Possibly, it
> could even show a reference bitmap from a different FOP version or even
> a different FO implementation.
> This helper application doesn't even necessarily have to be inside FOP
> because visually testing the formatting results could be interesting for
> other people, too (including possibly the XSL WG). To simplify calling
> different FO processors my general FO processing API could be a great
> helper here. I should simply find the time to publish the latest version.
> Anyone out there who would like to do such a nice little project?
> [1] has the potential problem of license issues because of the GPL.
> However, we would only call GhostScript via command-line but it could
> still be an unproper linking. Maybe the AFPL would be less problematic.
> We'd have to find out.
> Jeremias Maerki

Jeremias Maerki

View raw message