W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Tests assume distinct output rows are a bad idea

From: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 10:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1111011053270.14787@xyzzy.dajobe.org>
I had a detailed look and it seems all the tests with this issue have been 
corrected in the test suite (although they are all still unapproved in 
the functions directory).  You can consider this issue closed.

Thanks

Dave


On Tue, 1 Nov 2011, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> Could you please supply us with another example test that you have concerns 
> about?
>
> many thanks,
> Lee
> On Behalf of the SPARQL WG
>
> On 11/1/2011 10:58 AM, Dave Beckett wrote:
>> Nope.
>> 
>> My comment was about tests using SHA224 as an example not about SHA224.
>> Please confirm that the tests no longer rely on distinctness of the output
>> triples.
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/1/11 7:25 AM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>> Hi Dave,
>>> 
>>> The Working Group has recently resolved to remove the SHA224 function from
>>> SPARQL 1.1 Query. As a byproduct of this, the test in question below has
>>> also been removed from the test suite, so I think that the below issue is 
>>> no
>>> longer relevant.
>>> 
>>> If you could reply to the list to acknowledge that this addresses your
>>> comment, we'd appreciate it.
>>> 
>>> best,
>>> Lee
>>> On behalf of the SPARQL WG
>>> 
>>> On 10/9/2011 1:48 PM, Dave Beckett wrote:
>>>> A lot of the functions/* tests such as sha224-02 got unicode added
>>>> recently which assumes the output result rows are distinct.  This broke
>>>> many of my rasqal tests.
>>>> 
>>>> This is a bad idea for two reasons
>>>> 1) you should not make this assumption
>>>> 2) it does not distinguish the state of the two tests in the file - the 
>>>> \u
>>>> form or the unicode form.  If something broke, you couldn't tell since
>>>> only 1 result is expected
>>>> 
>>>> so instead of:
>>>> :s8 :str "\u98DF", "?" .
>>>> 
>>>> use
>>>> :s8 :str "\u98DF" .
>>>> :s9 :str  "?" .
>>>> 
>>>> and adjust the output results to suit
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> Dave
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 17:54:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 November 2011 17:54:54 GMT