- From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:15:36 +0000
- To: Anthony Kukurikos <anthony.kukurikos@gmail.com>
- CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Anthony Kukurikos wrote: > Thanks for this, Phil. I already spot 2 features on the formal doc that I > have not included tests for. One question: should we have tests for the > cardinalities of each include/exclude element? It is not a matter of > workload as it is trivial, I just don't know if it facilitates the > readability of the TS doc (which is of course an important matter but not as > important as its usefulness). It's a matter of striking a balance between 'proving everything works' and going over the top with a separate test for every last thing. I lumped the IRI constraints together as a compromise on this. It's only in/excludepathcontains and in/excluderegex that's allowed more than once anyway - the rest are all 0 or 1. If you have a good test to hand, good - use it, but let's not over do it! P > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org> wrote: > >> This took a little longer than I'd hoped but I've complied what I think is >> a reasonably comprehensive list of the features that the three Rec Track >> docs introduce [1]. I'm now going to start going through them all and >> checking off that the bits of code I've done do actually satisfy all those - >> I bet I find one or two holes! >> >> Antonis - I'll try and keep a track of that as it might be useful for the >> Test Suite. >> >> Andrea, Kevin - this should also, I hope, help to identify any remaining >> bugs in your code? >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil. >> >> [1] http://philarcher.org/powder/features.html >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Phil Archer >> w. http://philarcher.org/ >> >> > -- Phil Archer w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2008 11:16:17 UTC