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 10:50:26 -0500
Message-ID: <5460DEC2.7050706@gmail.com>
To: www-voice@w3.org
OK,  I understand the point.   Looking at the IR document, it looks like 
579 and 580 were added recently and I may have introduced an 
inconsistency in doing so.

However, I do remember some strong opinions about '==' vs '=' in ECMA, 
so I would  like to give other people a chance to voice their opinions.  
If no one objects by the end of the day Wednesday (in whatever time zone 
you're in), I will change tests 579 and 580 as Ate suggests.

- Jim

On 11/10/2014 10:35 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 2014-11-10 16:06, Jim Barnett wrote:
>> Ate,
>>    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. '='?
>
> What I wanted to point out is that already other tests (like 147 and 
> many more), do use conf:idVal="1=1" (or likewise) in the txml, which 
> get properly transformed for both xpath and ecmascript.
>
> If you 'fix' this for tests 579 and 580 only in the xslt, you actually 
> are introducing two separate ways of defining such condition, for 
> xpath that is.
> Making the xpath xslt more 'lenient' so to say.
>
> While if you change the 579 and 580 txml file, you're using the same 
> and a single type of definition already used for many other tests.
> To me it seems trivial and just much cleaner to do the latter.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Right.
> If I'm hitting more IRP quirks I'll let you know.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ate
>
>>
>>   - 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 15:50:53 UTC

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