On Thu, 26 May 2011 02:34:28 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not sure how it is best to test this.  The common `printc' method
> for emacs tests does not work, because it prints invisible parts as
> well.  We need either to find a way to print only visible text on the
> console, or test it inside emacs somehow.  Any suggestions?

Unfortunately, I don't have a good plan here. I delayed implementing any
automated testing at all of the emacs interface precisely because of
this problem. It's seems to me that surely emacs must have some built-in
mechanism for copying the visible portion of a block of text, but I've
not been able to find it.

We could do something cheesy (and slow) by marching through the buffer
character-by-character in elisp and testing for visibility, but the
emacs tests are already the slowest part of "make test"[*] so that would
be obnoxious.

> Note that this is exactly the patch that hits the isearch emacs bug.  Do
> I understand correctly that you are ready to push the series despite of
> it (given that we have a test)?

Breaking isearch would be really unfortunate. That's a really nice
feature of the emacs frontend currently.

So I would notice that breakage, (while I've apparently never before
noticed the breakage of having visible citations in a hidden message).

So no, I'm not saying I'm ready to push the series while emacs is broken.

-Carl

[*] Maybe the performance of the emacs testing could be significantly
improved by sharing a single invocation of emacs? Perhaps this wouldn't
even be hard by just using emacsclient?