I have a build.lua with checkconfigs = {"build", "build-luatex"} and excludetests = {"test002"}. In build-luatex.lua, I have includetests = {"test002", "test007"}. Now, when I run this, it only says that it had tested test007 with luatex. But I think it did do both tests. Is there something wrong with my setup?

Hm, it seems that excludetests overrides includetests for both files.

I solved it by turning instructions (first do the LuaTeX stuff with just the two tests, then do the rest. But there should be a way to undo settings by excludetests.

I can probably just say excludetests = {} to clear the dictionary

I hate ebgaramond-maths.

@cfr As commented on the question, is there any reason using it when there is a garamond-math math font?

@cfr Oi I just looked at the file and I see you blame me:-)

@DavidCarlisle Now we start to like the package.

anyone around who could spam flag tex.stackexchange.com/a/736396/36296 ? I already flagged it as something else before they edited in the spam and thus can't flag again.

@samcarter Done

@JasperHabicht Thanks!

Oh, it's gone already

What a strange strategy: Posting spam for a German website on an English speaking site and just now they created an account for the Spanish version of SO. How many German speakers will they reach on "SO en español"?

@JasperHabicht sounds like global variables are a bad interface to control a script... :)

@Skillmon Right. I did not test whether excludetests = {} works. Maybe I can keep the current setup, I was wondering whether I should file an issue ...

@JasperHabicht would require quite some retouching in l3build I'd assume.

(and in every build.lua)

@Skillmon :)

@JosephWright build.lua should've built a local table that is returned on the end of the files... One could still change l3build to keep the settings local for every (sub)-build.lua it handles, but that will most likely break someone else's configuration. Something like backing up the global namespace before reading every build.lua, processing it and recovering the state before processing the next file.

@JosephWright or one could add this as an additional means to configure l3build, something like if files returns table use that, else use global changes.

@Skillmon It was meant to be relatively simple, as you know - ideally basic configs not needing Lua programming at all - and the multiple setups stuff was all added rather later on

Would be backwards compatible but also allow cleaner setups for future projects

@JosephWright yes, of course :) And that was much simpler than using a YAML or TOML or ... parser

@Skillmon it would be okay if resetting was needed, but then a hint should be included in the doc

@JasperHabicht that's just basic Lua behaviour... :P

@Skillmon Well yes

@Skillmon I cite: “ It was meant to be relatively simple, as you know - ideally basic configs not needing Lua programming at all…” :)

@JosephWright as an added benefit it turns out to be quite powerful the way it currently is because you can also change built in functions (if you know what you're doing). But the local settings thingy would be a nice addition, imho, and elegantly solve problems like the one @JasperHabicht faces. Something like local this = {} this.excludetests = { "007" } return this in the first file such that the second file doesn't have overshadowed excludetests.

@JasperHabicht just because it was meant like that doesn't mean it is :P With the originally intended use case of only a single build.lua and no subfiles that would've been the case. So your fault for using modern features added as an afterthought.

@DavidCarlisle I only blame you for the errors, I think.

BTW, wouldn't be nice to have a multi-page file in mwe? So that you could do examples with, for example, \includepdf without any additional files? (sort of what example-images are for?)

@Rmano are you looking for example-image-letter-numbered etc?

@Rmano or better: use example-image-duck

@samcarter oh, yes, that would do ;-). I was just thinking in something more... wordy. Thanks!

@Rmano who needs words if you can have duck?

@samcarter 😂

@samcarter you were faster... :) Of course the ducks got you covered.

@Skillmon :D

@Skillmon Well, as I said: It is fine to add excludetests = {}, I just wasn't sure and the manual is silent in this regard. So, I don't blame the programming logic, I only blame the manual =3

@samcarter ooh

@PauloCereda A very useful package!

@mickep I wouldn't know. I have never used either. but there are reasons to use pdfTeX, so possibly.