W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > June 2007

Re: unit testing Xproc thoughts

From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:55:36 +0200
Message-ID: <a0ad8ffe0706071355q6adc447ap974668868273fb92@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

On 6/7/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> | At a minimum I would propose some sort of p:assert task that compares
> | values....typically xml trees. From an implementators viewpoint, this
> | could be as simple as wrapping up xmlunit.
> Pointer to xmlunit?


use it all the time, eXist database has a good example wrapper around it

> There's a proposal to add a p:equal step. I implemented one myself
> for...running the unit tests in the test collection :-)

this would all be simple with a p:xpath type step....would mean
avoiding rebuilding the xpath wheel...would be esp. useful if we had a
step reuse mechanism that provided default values...hehe, ok I will
stop banging that drum.

> | Have the WG for XML Processing thought about this scenario
> We haven't discussed it yet, but a concrete proposal with all the
> signatures that you'd like would be useful.

will have a think

cheers, Jim Fuller
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 20:55:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:24 UTC