W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > March 2009

Re: parameters with my test runner

From: Philip Fennell <philip.fennell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:33:27 +0100
Message-ID: <de7ce88b0903300033i468e75aerd026d06d446922d6@mail.gmail.com>
To: xproc-dev@w3.org
James wrote:

> My ext:xproc would then bring in all the inputs (apart from primary) in the
> same way as I do external bindings

I agree with you. I have to, in effect, do the same thing with my
XProc processor when implementing the p:xslt step.

I'm glad to see another example of the xproc step, it will prove very useful.


Regards

Philip Fennell


2009/3/29 James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>:
> Hello,
>
> I have a crude test runner which I use with my xproc impl:
>
> <p:declare-step name="pipeline"
>            xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc"
>            xmlns:t="http://xproc.org/ns/testsuite"
>            xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc-step"
>            xmlns:ext="http://xproc.net/xproc/ext">
>
> <p:input port="source" primary="true"/>
>
> <p:input port="input-port" primary="false"
> select="/t:test/t:input[@port='source']/*">
>    <p:pipe step="pipeline" port="stdin"/>
> </p:input>
> <p:input port="output-port" primary="false"
> select="/t:test/t:output[@port='result']/*">
>    <p:pipe step="pipeline" port="stdin"/>
> </p:input>
> <p:input port="pipeline-port" primary="false" select="/t:test/t:pipeline/*">
>    <p:pipe step="pipeline" port="stdin"/>
> </p:input>
>
> <p:output port="result" primary="true"/>
>
> <ext:xproc name="test-pipeline">
>    <p:input port="source" select="/">
>        <p:pipe step="pipeline" port="input-port"/>
>    </p:input>
>    <p:input port="pipeline" select="/">
>        <p:pipe step="pipeline" port="pipeline-port"/>
>    </p:input>
> </ext:xproc>
>
> <p:compare>
>    <p:input port="source">
>        <p:pipe port="result" step="test-pipeline"/>
>    </p:input>
>    <p:input port="alternate">
>        <p:pipe port="output-port" step="pipeline"/>
>    </p:input>
> </p:compare>
>
> </p:declare-step>
>
> Which will run an xproc defined test (http://tests.xproc.org/) and
> check that the output matches expected output.
>
> Two things to note is that my implementation (expressing impl freedom
> ;) ) of p:compare result port is primary (which will change).
>
> The other is I have a ext:xproc which runs an xproc pipeline given an input.
>
> Plenty of the tests in the test suite define multiple inputs which
> reflect that some steps have multiple inputs (p:xslt for example).
>
> I could choose to define ext:xproc with all known non primary inputs
> but I would also have to define the corresponding top level inputs,
> this approach is not really maintainable.
>
> perhaps this is a good example for the use of parameters?
>
> My ext:xproc would then bring in all the inputs (apart from primary)
> in the same way as I do external bindings ... in any event, this
> clarified the use case for parameters for me ... but I still find them
> a little non intuitive.
>
> as an aside, is the name 'parameters' reserved e.g. is this possible
>
>  <p:input port="parameters" kind="document"/>
>
> cheers, Jim Fuller
>
>
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 07:34:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 March 2009 07:34:08 GMT