W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2011

[Bug 11813] Clarification request for the Constr-cont-nsmode-5 test

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:45:42 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PiANC-0000hD-IV@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11813

--- Comment #5 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2011-01-26 18:45:42 UTC ---
The original design of the test suite seems to have been that if a test depends
on an optional feature, then it should go in a test group (in the catalog)
whose name implies a dependency on that feature. However, there doesn't seem to
be a section of the catalog for tests that depend on the input document being
pre-validated outside the query ("construction from a PSVI" in
spec-terminology.) So it's not obvious where one would move these tests to
indicate such a dependency.

Some other tests such as Constr-cont-constrmod-2 simply give two alternative
results, one for validated input and one for unvalidated. Since there is no
indication of the relationship of test results to processor features, this is a
very unsatisfactory resolution.

In the XQuery Update tests we have moved in the direction of having the
metadata for a test group describe its dependencies on optional features. For
example:

            <GroupInfo>
               <title>Revalidation Declaration = strict</title>
               <description/>
               <depends-on>
                  <feature supported="true">revalidation:strict</feature>
                  <description>These tests are designed to be run by a product 
that supports
                     revalidation mode strict</description>
                  <spec-citation spec="XQUPDATE" section-number="2.2.1"
                     section-title="Revalidation Declaration"
                     section-pointer="id-revalidation-declaration"/>
               </depends-on>
            </GroupInfo>

I think this is the right strategic direction: we should put these tests in a
group and label it

<depends-on>
  <feature supported="true">input-construction:PSVI</feature>
</depends-on>

and if appropriate, include another copy of the test with

<depends-on>
  <feature supported="true">input-construction:infoset</feature>
</depends-on>

and a different expected result.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 18:45:47 UTC

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