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 10:06:54 -0500
Message-ID: <5460D48E.1000605@gmail.com>
To: www-voice@w3.org
   Can you clarify a bit?  If we change the xslt file to map '==' onto 
'=' in Xpath, what is the problem with the ones that have 
'conf:idVal="1=1"'.  They would also map onto '='.  Or is the problem 
something other than than '==' vs. '='?

There are two other implementations that support XPath that I'm aware 
of:  PySCXML and hscxml.  I ran the XPath tests on PySCXML when I wrote 
them, but that was a couple of years ago, and there have been a number 
of changes since then.  The author of PyScxml is updating his 
implementation now, but hasn't filed an IR report, so I don't know if 
he's run the XPath tests recently.  hscxml does support XPath, but its 
author had already filed an IR for the core mandatory tests using 
another datamodel, so when he added XPath support, he ran only the tests 
that were specific to the XPath datamodel (i.e. those for section B.3).  
uscxml says it has rudimentary support for the XPath datamodel, but its 
authors haven't filed an IR report for XPath, so I don't know how many 
of the tests they have run.

In short, I think that you're the first person to exercise the full 
confXPath.xsl file in a couple of years.

  - Jim

- Jim
On 11/10/2014 9:47 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 2014-11-10 15:00, Jim Barnett wrote:
>> 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.)
> There are many other tests, like for example test147, having the same 
> type of condition check like 'conf:idVal="1=1"'.
> So I'd say we either change the txml for 579 and 580 accordingly, or 
> else change all the other txml files.
> Seems like an easy choice to me :)
>> 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.
> OK, thanks for the heads up.
> I thought there were other implementations (like uscxml?) also 
> supporting xpath?
> Ate
>> - 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 15:07:25 UTC

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