RE: Comment on Test Cases

> 3) The test case is the wrong type - it should be negative rather
>    than positive, needs renaming
>    solution: rename test case file to negative, adjust manifest

(The test in the LC is negative, it should be positive).

I believe the positive test is correct, the negative test is incorrect.

Proposed solution:
solution: no rename necessary, adjust manifest

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: 21 February 2003 12:26
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk; www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comment on Test Cases
> 
> 
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:00:59 +0100
> Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > >
> > > > moreover,
> > > > [[
> > > > I think the test was correct as originally stated and is
> > > currently incorrect.
> > > > ]]
> > > >
> > > > (I am happy to ignore the procedural issue, really - but I did
> > > follow the
> > > > links and was disappointed = i.e. I still can't tell why 
> this test got
> > > > changed - nor can I tell why I didn't vote against such change)
> > >
> > > Brian, please give this an issue number.
> > 
> > Yes please - I disaagree with this test, which is the 
> substantive issue - an
> > approved test that disagrees with the Syntax doc.
> 
> I'm still unsure what you are exactly disagreeing with.  Can you say
> which of the following you mean:
> 
> 1) The test case file content needs to be changed to fix the test
>    solution: change the content
> 
> 2) The test is wrong (tests the wrong thing, not testable, ...)
>    solution: delete this test case file.
> 
> 3) The test case is the wrong type - it should be negative rather
>    than positive, needs renaming
>    solution: rename test case file to negative, adjust manifest
> 
> 4) The syntax doc needs changing to match the test case
>    solution: change the syntax doc
> 
> More than one of these may be needed.
> 
> This same test case is also in another LC issue:
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#krech-01
> 
> although that takes the syntax doc as in error; I'm not sure which is
> wrong now - the test case or the syntax doc.  Anyway, I expect a
> solution here will deal with both of them.
>  
> 
> > 
> > >
> > > Jeremy, the misunderstanding arose in the following week's 
> teleconference:
> > >
> > > 	http://www.w3.org/2003/01/17-rdfcore-irc
> > >
> > > the exchange recorded (minimally) starting with timestamp 15:28:45
> > >
> > > [[
> > > 15:28:45 [daveb-scr] gone some pending test cases
> > > 15:29:03 [daveb-scr] either we approve them or leave till LC process
> > > 15:29:07 [daveb-scr] bwm: what are pending?
> > > 15:29:39 [daveb-scr] bwm: weren't they approved last week
> > > 15:29:47 [daveb-scr] jang: ok
> > > 15:29:52 [daveb-scr] bwm: approved, done here
> > > ]]
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > Pretty minimalist :).
> 
> Yeah, I scribed and I can't work out what that means :)
> 
> Dave
>

Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 06:50:23 UTC