Re: tdf157829-rtl.fodt test failure

[Mattia Verga <libreoffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Il 28/12/24 14:46, Mattia Verga ha scritto:
> Il 28/12/24 12:31, Caolán McNamara - caolan.mcnamara at collabora.com 
> ha scritto:
>> On Sat, 2024-12-28 at 09:41 +0000, Mattia Verga wrote:
>>> WHile running tests for 25.2.0.1 I see a new test failure:
>>>
>>> file:///builddir/build/BUILD/libreoffice-25.2.0.1-build/libreoffice-
>>> 25.2.0.1//sw/qa/extras/layout/data//tdf157829-ltr.fodt:
>>> (anonymous namespace)::TestTdf157829LTR::TestBody finished in: 42ms
>>> [_RUN_____] (anonymous namespace)::TestTdf157829RTL::TestBody
>>> file:///builddir/build/BUILD/libreoffice-25.2.0.1-build/libreoffice-
>>> 25.2.0.1//sw/qa/extras/layout/data//tdf157829-rtl.fodt:
>>> terminating test due to missing font: Noto Sans Hebrew
>>>
>>> The font is installed (as you can see tdf157829-ltr.fodt is passing),
>>> yet tdf157829-rtl.fodt complains it isn't.
>> It's possible that in the passing document, that while Noto Sans Hebrew
>> is listed in the document, that it might not actually be used, while it
>> is used in the other documents. That said, assuming this is the .spec
>> file:
>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libreoffice/blob/rawhide/f/libreoffice.spec#_297 
>>
>> then "BuildRequires: google-noto-sans-hebrew-fonts" does suggest that
>> the font is installed.
>>
>> So it *might* be that the font is installed, but missing some glyphs
>> that it needs to have to render the offending text. Hard to tell. You
>> might have to attach a debugger to where that abort is, or some
>> additionally dumping of the contents of "rMissingCodes" to see if
>> there's any merit in that theory. If there are some missing codes, you
>> can check with fontforge to see if the "Noto Sans Hebrew" font is
>> really missing the glyphs that LibreOffice might believe are missing.
>>
> Thanks, I do see some "rMissingCodes" lines in the failure output. I 
> cannot understand it all, but a simple comparison of 
> NotoSansHebrew-Regular font provided by Fedora and the font downloaded 
> from LO extra sources shows that Fedora font is missing a lot of glyphs.
>
> I'll try to ask why to the Fedora maintainer of the font.
>
> Mattia
>
With support [1] from Fedora packager of Google Noto Sans fonts, the 
issue seems due to the fact that LibreOffice uses the "full" version of 
the font from the font sources, while Fedora (and possibly other linux 
distro, I've checked Debian, for example) ships "hinted" or "unhinted" 
versions.

The full version, quoting upstream:
<quote>
We also (based on a configuration file) use UFO merging to add subsets 
of Noto
Sans, Noto Serif or Noto Sans Devanagari into the sources to produce a 
"full"
build of the font.
</quote>

Therefore, using those "extra" glyphs in tests doesn't cause any failure 
when testing LO on builds using the bundled fonts, while running tests 
on downstream linux distribution using packaged fonts will fail. It 
would be nice if LO could switch to use the hinted/unhinted version 
(already present in the bundled sources) and avoid using those extra 
glyphs in tests.

Mattia

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2334719