Re: IRP for uSCXML

Stefan,
   I'm looking into these issues now.

For test350, does your transform by any chance give you any information 
on where the error is?  Mine doesn't, so I'm modifying things randomly, 
trying to find the problem without much luck.

For test513, the extension is defined in section 5.3 of the IR Test 
Plan, in the paragraph titled "Extensions Required".

For 519, 520, 531, and 534, in what way is the behavior underspecified? 
   We thought the definitions in C.2.1 and C.2.2 were sufficient to 
define the behavior.  Which statements are vague or underspecified?


On 6/23/2014 7:46 PM, Stefan Radomski wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> attached is the IRP report for uSCXML with the ecmascript datamodel. We pass most tests but:
> - the one where the XPath DM is hardcoded
> - test350 which fails to XSLT transform
> - test513 which tests for an unspecified http extension
> - test[519,520,531,534] which rely on an imho underspecified behavior of the basichttp ioprocessor
> - test579 with the recent addition of history transitions
>
> We do implement parts of the XPath DM but prefer not to submit an implementation report for it.
>
> Tests were:
> - performed on a Mac with JavaScriptCore for the ECMAScript datamodel implementation
> - validated on Linux with Google’s v8 for the ECMAScript datamodel implementation
> - fetched at 06/23/2014 - 4:22pm
> - run with uSCXML commit id 3d3f6a693ac51bca9b77133783a0fb296abd7ff6
>
> This submission is done to the best of our knowledge - if you cannot reproduce these tests, or there is a formal error with the submission please contact us.
>
> Best regards
> Stefan
>

-- 
Jim Barnett
Genesys

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 14:59:42 UTC