W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: [SCXML] IRP test579 and test580 produce invalid xpath syntax

From: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:00:37 -0500
Message-ID: <5460C505.5060103@gmail.com>
To: www-voice@w3.org
Ate,
   You're right that this doesn't work in XPath.  My only question is 
whether we should change the txml or the XPAth xslt file.  The XPatth 
definition of conf:idVal could insert the single '=' in place of the 
'=='.  This would leave the ECMA tests untouched  (and I remember some 
strong opinions about whether to use '=' or '==' in ECMA.)

The XPath tests haven't been run in a couple of years.  We've made a 
number of changes to the tests since then, so I think it's likely that 
you will find other problems as well.

- Jim
On 11/9/2014 9:08 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just noticed this with the IRP test579 and test580.
>
> Both these tests define transitions with conditions conf:idVal="1==0" 
> or conf:idVal="1==1". When transformed with the confXPath.xsl 
> stylesheet this leads to invalid xpath syntax cond="$Var1/text() ==0" 
> or cond="$Var1/text() ==1"
>
> Seems unlikely to me anyone testing these for the xpath datamodel gets 
> them to pass.
>
> NB: these tests do produce correct ecmascript syntax when using the 
> confEcma.xsl...
>
> After I manually fixed these conditions in the txml to 
> conf:idVal="1=0" and conf:idVal="1=1", both tests work fine and pass 
> in my implementation (for both ecmascript and xpath).
>
> So I think these tests should be fixed like this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ate
>
Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 14:01:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:45 UTC