W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2007

[Bug 4215] wrong expected output for K2-Literals-8, K2-Literals-9

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:18:52 +0000
CC:
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1H6kSy-00083L-II@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4215





------- Comment #7 from frans.englich@telia.com  2007-01-16 09:18 -------
Here's the catalog entry for K2-Literals-8:

           <ts:test-case Creator="Frans Englich" is-XPath2="false"
name="K2-Literals-8"
FilePath="Expressions/PrimaryExpr/Literals/" scenario="standard">
<ts:description>Use a relatively large xs:double literal.</ts:description>
<ts:query name="K2-Literals-8" date="2007-01-15+01:00"/>
<ts:input-file role="principal-data"
variable="input-context">emptydoc</ts:input-file>
<ts:output-file role="principal"
compare="Ignore">K2-Literals-8.txt</ts:output-file>
<ts:expected-error>FOAR0002</ts:expected-error>
</ts:test-case>

So the output baselines are as follows:

* An expected error, FOAR0002
* An ignore baseline. That is, any output is valid. The guidelines reads:
"Ignore: no comparison needs to be applied; the result is always true if the
implementation successfully executes the test case."

So, it makes little sense to open a file for which nothing shall be done for. I
agree that that K2-Literals-8.txt is mentioned is confusing, and that it is
less confusing with an absent filename. I'll get rid of the dummy name in a
future commit.

I believe the same reasoning could be applied to the initial comment in this
report. For example, K2-Literals-8.txt existed and had the content "true", but
was referenced from the catalog as Ignore, and the content shouldn't
matter(although it surely isn't pretty to throw files around like that).

Is my analysis correct or am I missing something?
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2007 09:18:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:32 UTC