Bug 50705 - [PATCH] AFP TLEs and NOPs not in the order described in the FO
Summary: [PATCH] AFP TLEs and NOPs not in the order described in the FO
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Fop - Now in Jira
Classification: Unclassified
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: all
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: fop-dev
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-02-02 03:48 UTC by Mehdi Houshmand
Modified: 2012-04-01 06:17 UTC (History)
0 users



Attachments
Patch to fix out of order printing of TLEs in AFP (4.21 KB, patch)
2011-02-02 03:48 UTC, Mehdi Houshmand
Details | Diff
Test case (2.62 KB, text/x-xslfo)
2011-02-02 03:48 UTC, Mehdi Houshmand
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Mehdi Houshmand 2011-02-02 03:48:05 UTC
Created attachment 26593 [details]
Patch to fix out of order printing of TLEs in AFP

I'll include a test case FO and before and after AFP documents. The issues is as follows; if you define a combination of TLEs and NOPs in the simple-page-master, regardless of the order, FOP will print the TLEs first then the NOPs. 

The reason is because they're held in different ArrayLists in o.a.f.afp.modca.AbstractPageObject. Why it has been done this way? I don't know, there may be a perfectly good reason I'm not aware of. But since they derive from a common ancestor (AbstractStructuredObject), I've removed the list that stores the TLEs separately, so that TLEs and NOPs are stored in the same ArrayList. This means that the TLEs and NOPs are printed in the order they appear in the FO.
Comment 1 Mehdi Houshmand 2011-02-02 03:48:55 UTC
Created attachment 26594 [details]
Test case

This is the test case for this bug
Comment 2 Mehdi Houshmand 2011-02-02 03:49:55 UTC
On second thoughts, attaching before and after AFPs seems redundant, if anyone requests them, I'll be happy to post them here
Comment 3 Jeremias Maerki 2011-02-04 03:20:59 UTC
Patch applied. Thanks, Mehdi!
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1067109&view=rev
Comment 4 Glenn Adams 2012-04-01 06:17:07 UTC
batch transition to closed; if someone wishes to restore one of these to resolved in order to perform a verification step, then feel free to do so