- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:34:57 +0200
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>, public-rdfjs@w3.org
Hi Gregg, >> I would gladly use the SPARQL syntax test suite (as I did for Turtle [1]), >> but unlike Turtle, the SPARQL test suite doesn't seem to give the correct solution. > > How so? Well, given the SPARQL query exists01.rq, I don't have the correct parse tree. (Only the expected result of the query, but then I need to have an executor as well.) > The approach I used for the Ruby SPARQL gem is to ensure that the grammar parses to essentially the same algebra as Jena produces. I have a copy of these results included with the published tests at [2]. For example, parsing data-sparql11/exists/exists01.rq should generate data-sparql11/exists/exists01.sse. Ah okay, I hadn't found "exists01.sse" and related documents. They don't seem to be linked from anywhere. So when the library generates SPARQL algebra, those can be tested. > found this approach to be pretty effective at implementing most everything; the few things that this doesn't cover are done in some gem-specific rspec tests. I'm now testing with queries from the spec, and queries that I made myself. The test suite verifies them against manually verified JSON documents. Best, Ruben
Received on Monday, 25 August 2014 13:35:35 UTC