Tests speaker notes appearing after (and inside of) separating blocks.
Output checked on Windows10 (archlinux virtualbox), PowerPoint
2013. Not corrupted, and output as expected.
These were never added when the tests were first created.
Output files checked in MS PowerPoint 2013 (Windows 10, VBox). No
corruption, and output as expected.
Make sure there are no empty slides in the pptx output. Because of the
way that slides were split, these could be accidentally produced by
comments after images.
When animations are added, there will be a way to add an empty slide
with either incremental lists or pauses.
Test outputs checked with MS PowerPoint (Office 2013, Windows 10,
VBox). Both files have expected output and are not corrupted.
Modify the PowerPoint tests to run all the tests with
template (--reference-doc) as well. Because there are so many
interlocking pieces, bugs can pop up in weird places when using
templates, since it changes how the writer builds its output
file.
For example, I recently discovered a bug in which speaker notes worked
fine and templating worked fine elsewhere, but templating with speaker
notes produced a file that would crash MS PowerPoint. That particular
bug was fixed, but this will forces us to check for that with each new
change.
Since the template changed, some small elements of these test files
changed as well.
All of these were checked with Powerpoint 2013 on Windows
10 (VirtualBox). All had expected outcomes and no corruption.
Previously we had tested certain properties of the output PowerPoint
slides. Corruption, though, comes as the result of a numebr of
interrelated issues in the output pptx archive. This is a new
approach, which compares the output of the Powerpoint writer with
files that we know to (a) not be corrupt, and (b) to show the desired
output behavior (details below). This commit introduces three tests
using the new framework. More will follow.
The test procedure: given a native file and a pptx file, we generate a
pptx archive from the native file, and then test:
1. Whether the same files are in the two archives
2. Whether each of the contained xml files is the same. (We skip time
entries in `docProps/core.xml`, since these are derived from IO. We
just check to make sure that they're there in the same way in both
files.)
3. Whether each of the media files is the same.
Note that steps 2 and 3, though they compare multiple files, are one
test each, since the number of files depends on the input file (if
there is a failure, it will only report the first failed file
comparison in the test failure).
