W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Action: Test Cases passing only 1 implementation

From: Keith Wells <wellsk@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:47:00 -0500
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5CD8470A.CB1A8147-ON87257553.0045E3AE-85257553.0046366A@us.ibm.com>

John,

Did you not see this email [1]?

>In general, it seems more like we need the implementation report that
looks like all your other reports, except that the last column would just
contain a comma separated list of the implementations (FF, EMC, >Chiba,
Ubiquity, ...).  It seems like this could be generated by XSLT, and it
would be the best way to get updates as the news changes.
Nice suggestion and it would be nice! :)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2009Jan/0050.html

Keith


                                                                           
             John Boyer                                                    
             <boyerj@ca.ibm.co                                             
             m>                                                         To 
                                       Keith Wells/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS       
             02/03/2009 06:14                                           cc 
             PM                        Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>      
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: Action: Test Cases passing only 
                                       1 implementation                    
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Hi Keith,

I am wondering if it would be possible to update this list.

The recently published EMC reports conformance for a number of tests that
are listed below as supported only by FF, so this could reduce our number
of "critical" and "high" priority features.

However, in that same report, there are some tests that EMC reports it does
not conform to, but which are listed below as being supported by EMC only.

Finally, this makes me wonder if a review of the tests is needed to
determine if there are any tests which have to go down to one
implementation (FF).

In general, it seems more like we need the implementation report that looks
like all your other reports, except that the last column would just contain
a comma separated list of the implementations (FF, EMC, Chiba,
Ubiquity, ...).  It seems like this could be generated by XSLT, and it
would be the best way to get updates as the news changes.

Anyway, this caught my eye because I noticed that the digest() function was
supported by EMC, but I remembered seeing red for those tests in their
report.  Then I looked and noticed there were tests in Chapter 3 that EMC
passes, but which are shown below as only supported in FF.  Then I found
that all Ch. 4 tests listed below as supported only be EMC are in fact not
supported by EMC.  That's when I stopped because it became clear that the
automated approach would be needed.

Thanks,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw



                                                                           
 From:       Keith Wells <wellsk@us.ibm.com>                               
                                                                           
 To:         Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>                                
                                                                           
 Date:       01/19/2009 11:33 AM                                           
                                                                           
 Subject:    Action: Test Cases passing only 1 implementation              
                                                                           






Summary for Tests Passing in only 1 implementation: Firefox and EMC XForms
1.1 implementation reports

Action: Analyze the Firefox and EMC implementation reports to find the test
cases which have only one successful pass.
Note: Even though the Ubiquity-XForms project [1] has not officially
submitted a formal implementation report for XForms 1.1, these reports are
available and some test cases with successful passes were used in this
summary.

Note: MUST/Required, SHOULD/Recommendation and MAY/Optional were derived
from [2].

The following represent the tests which passed in only one implementation.

>From chapter 3:
Required:
3.3.1.c1 valid schema (EMC)
3.3.1.c2 invalid schema (EMC)
3.3.1.d2 version attribute negative test 1 (FF)
3.3.1.d3 version attribute negative test 2 (FF)
3.3.4.b more bind element examples (FF)

>From chapter 4:
Required:
4.2.1.b2 schemas loaded with an xforms-link-exception (EMC)
4.3.6.b navigation sequence with navindex (FF)
4.6.1.a2 event sequenceing for range and upload controls (FF)
4.6.3.c event sequencing for select/select1 controls (focus changes) (EMC)
4.6.5.a event sequencing for submit controls (EMC)
4.8.1.a getInstanceDocument() method (EMC)
4.8.1.b getInstanceDocument() throws a DOMException (EMC)
Recommended:
4.2.2.c2 invalid QNAME causes xforms-binding-exception (EMC)
4.2.4.a xforms-model-destruct dispatched after form submission (EMC)

>From chapter 5:
Required:
5.1.a built-in primitive types (FF)
5.1.c supported primitive XML schema types in basic processors (FF)
5.2.1.a XForms datatypes to allow empty content - built-in primitive types
(FF)
5.2.1.b XForms datatypes to allow empty content - built-in derived types
(FF)
5.2.1.c built-in data types which allow empty content for basic processors
(FF)
5.2.2.a listItem datatype (FF)
5.2.3.a listItems datatype (FF)
5.2.4.a dayTimeDuration datatype (FF)
5.2.5.a yearMonthDuration datatype (FF)
5.2.6.a email datatype (FF)
5.2.7.a card-number datatype (FF)

>From chapter 6:
Required:
6.2.1.a atomic datatype

>From chapter 7:
Required:
7.8.3.a digest() function using sha1, md5, and sha256 (EMC)
7.8.3.b digest() function using sha384 and sha512 (EMC)
7.8.4.a hmac() function using sha1, md5, and sha256 (EMC)
7.8.4.b hmac() function using sha384 and sha512 (EMC)
7.10.3.a id() function (FF)
7.11.2.b event() function with resource-uri property (FF)

>From chapter 8:
Required:
8.1.a navindex and accesskey (FF)
8.1.1.a form control violates data binding restriction (FF)
8.1.1.b non-relevant form control becoming relevant (EMC)
8.1.6.a mediatype attribute for upload element (EMC)
8.1.6.d data binding restrictions for upload element (EMC)
8.1.7.d incremental attribute of range element (FF)
8.1.7.f data binding restrictions on range element (FF)
8.1.7.g data binding restrictions on range element for basic processors
(FF)
8.1.10.a selection attribute of select element (FF)
8.1.10.c appearance attribute of select element (EMC)
8.1.10.d value out of range of a select element (EMC)
8.2.3.b hint element uses inline text (EMC)
8.3.2.a item element (EMC)
8.3.3.b precedence for value element (EMC)

>From chapter 9:
Recommended:
9.1.1.a2 group element inside case element of a switch (FF)
9.2.1.a2 switch element receives events (FF)
9.3.5.a repeating structures via attributes Fail (EMC)
9.3.6.a itemset element example (EMC)
9.3.7.b copy element has xforms-binding-exception event

>From chapter 10:
Required:
10.3.d insert action using at attribute (FF)
10.3.e insert action using position attribute (EMC)
10.3.h insert action and repeat element (FF)
10.3.j insert action - copying an attribute (FF)
10.7.1.a setfocus element with value child element Failed (FF)
10.7.1.b control element precedence tests (FF)
10.8.d dispatch element dispatches custom event that bubbles (EMC)
10.8.f dispatch element dispatches cancelled predefined event (EMC)
10.8.1.c value attribute has precedence in name element (FF)
10.8.2.c value attribute has precedence in target element (FF)
10.8.3.c value attribute has precedence in delay element (FF)
10.18.a iteration of XForms actions (EMC)
10.18.b iteration of XForms actions using action element (EMC)
10.18.d XForms actions with if and while attributes (EMC)
10.18.e iteration of XForms actions - Summing Selected Results example
(EMC)
Recommended:
10.6.1.a case element child of the toggle element (FF)
10.14.1.a load element with resource child element Failed (FF)
10.14.1.b value attribute has precedence in load element (FF)
10.15.a send element (EMC)

>From chapter 11:
* Submission Module is Recommended
11.1.i relevant attribute of submission element (EMC)
11.1.m mediatype attribute of submission element (EMC)
11.1.n encoding attribute of submission element (EMC)
11.1.q cdata-section-elements attribute of submission element (EMC)
11.1.r replace attribute of submission element (EMC)
11.1.s1 instance attribute of submission element (EMC)
11.1.s2 invalid instance attribute of submission element (EMC)
11.1.t target attribute of submission element (EMC)
11.1.u separator attribute of submission element (EMC)
11.1.v includenamespaceprefixes attribute of submission element (EMC)
11.2.b non-relevant nodes are not serialized (EMC)
11.2.c xforms-submit with empty instance data (EMC)
11.2.e xforms-submit stops with invalid instance data (EMC)
11.3.a xforms-submit-serialize event (EMC)
11.3.b xforms-submit-serialize event with submission-body property (EMC)
11.4.b accessing context information for xforms-submit-done event (EMC)
11.5.a xforms-submit-error event (EMC)
11.5.b accessing context information for xforms-submit-error event (EMC)
11.6.1.a resource element (EMC)
11.6.1.b resource element with value attribute (EMC)
11.8.a header element of submission element (EMC)
11.8.b header element with nodeset attribute (EMC)
11.8.1.a name element with value attribute (EMC)
11.8.2.a value element with value attribute (EMC)
11.9.d HTTP multipart-post as a submission option (EMC)
11.9.e HTTP form-data-post as a submission option (EMC)
11.9.f HTTP urlencoded-posts as a submission option (EMC)
11.9.j HTTPS multipart-post as a submission option (EMC)
11.9.k HTTPS form-data-post as a submission option (EMC)
11.9.l HTTPS urlencoded-posts as a submission option (EMC)
11.9.o File Put as a submission option (EMC)
11.9.1.a get submission method (EMC)
11.9.2.b multipart-post submission method (EMC)
11.9.3.b put submission method to local file (EMC)
11.9.5.a serialization as application/xml (EMC)
11.9.6.a serialization as multipart/related (EMC)
11.9.7.a serialization as multipart/form-data (EMC)
11.9.8.a serialization as application/x-www-form-urlencoded (EMC)
11.10.c submission response with target receiving instance (EMC)
11.11.2.a indicating a SOAP submission (EMC)
11.11.3.b SOAP HTTP binding with post method (EMC)
11.11.3.c SOAP HTTP binding (EMC)

[1] http://code.google.com/p/ubiquity-xforms/
[2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-diff.html#conform

Keith





graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

pic29520.gif
(image/gif attachment: pic29520.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:47:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:50 UTC