Re: unit testing Xproc thoughts

On the subject of unit testing, what would be useful is a standard XML format for logging errors/warnings/information/etc. that can be used both by the XProc application and by individual steps, stylesheets, etc.  That format could then be processed to provide uniform reporting, which is what you need (in my opinion) to make sense of unit tests as applications become larger (as they will over time).

I could contribute something if there is interest in going in this direction.

Cheers, Tony.

----- Original Message -----
From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
To: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Sent: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:29:15 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: unit testing Xproc thoughts

/ 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?

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

| 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.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | It is not failure of others to
http://nwalsh.com/            | appreciate your abilities that should
                              | trouble you, but rather your failure to
                              | appreciate theirs.-- Confucius
--
Anthony B. Coates
Senior Partner
Miley Watts LLP
Experts In Data
+44 (79) 0543 9026
Data standards participant: genericode, ISO 20022 (ISO 15022 XML), UN/CEFACT, MDDL, FpML, UBL.
http://www.mileywatts.com/

Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 00:56:06 UTC