| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
(Instead of old Span with underline class.
Spans with `underline` will no longer be rendered
as underlined text.)
|
|
The previous built-in reference doc had only title and content
layouts. Add in a section-header slide and a two-content slide, so
users can more easily modify it to build their own templates.
Golden files needed to be regenerated. Checked on MS PowerPoint 2013.
|
|
Due to viewProps change in 61dc0f9f.
Golden files checked on PowerPoint 2013 (Win 10 on virtualbox).
|
|
|
|
* docx writer: support custom properties. Solves the writer part of #3024.
Also supports additional core properties: `subject`, `lang`, `category`,
`description`.
* odt writer: improve standard properties, including the following core properties:
`generator` (Pandoc/VERSION), `description`, `subject`, `keywords`,
`initial-creator` (from authors), `creation-date` (actual creation date).
Also fix date.
* pptx writer: support custom properties. Also supports additional core
properties: `subject`, `category`, `description`.
* Includes golden tests.
* MANUAL: document metadata support for docx, odt, pptx writers
|
|
Checked with Office 2013. No corruption and output as expected.
|
|
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).
|
