W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > April to June 2010

April CCXML: test case conflicts with ECMA rules

From: Chris Davis <davisc@iivip.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:24:03 -0500
Message-ID: <4BD04DF3.1000205@iivip.com>
To: www-voice@w3.org
Hello voice group,

For test case 798 of 8_4_A.txml, there appears to be an inconsistency 
with relation to ECMA script rules and scoping rules
 laid out in the Recommendation's scoping section ( 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-ccxml-20100401/#Assign ).

Specifically, the Recommendation describes just 4 scopes; session, 
application, ccxml, and transition.
However, test case 798 indicates that the test designer assumed that "if 
(statement) {  }" results in a new scope, and any
variables declared live inside this new non-existant scope.

The problem is that in ECMA, "if" does not create a scope, and any vars 
declared get "positioned" in the current scope and set
to undefined prior to execution. Here is the offending test fragment:
<transition event="user.START_ASSERTION_795" state="ASSERTION_NMBR_795">

<assign name="ASSERTION_NUM" expr="'798'"/>
<if cond="id==session.id">
    <assign name="application.id" expr="'1'"/>
    <if cond="id=='1'">
        <var name="id" expr="'2'"/>
The local position of "id" gets put into the nearest scope, which in 
this case is the transition level scope.
When the script runs, this means that "id" exists but has the value 
undefined when <if cond="id==session.id"> runs,
so the test always fails.

To the test designer the javascript equivalent of the test fragment is:
    application.id = '1';
    if( id=='1' )
        var id = '2';
But in reality to ECMA the xml becomes:
var id=undefined; // because this is the scope; not the if {} and id has 
not been assigned yet
if(id==session.id) // always fails now
    application.id = '1';
    if( id=='1' )
        id = '2';
We don't see in the Recommendation where "if" is supposed to create a 
new scope, so we fall back on ECMA
rules, where "if" does *not* create a scope. In theory a block scope 
could be created after "if" with the "let"
keyword, but we doubt that was intended.

We recommend the test be deleted or modified.

As a followup, when the test fails, it fails to record the error 
properly because in the .txml,
there is:
<log expr="LogPrefix + ' FAIL session.id/id=' + id + ' expected 

and LogPrefix is undefined.



Chris Davis
Interact Incorporated R&D
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 13:24:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:41 UTC