Re: Test suite results

Norm Tovey-Walsh writes:

>> Can you characterise the ones it didn't pass?

> One of them :-)

> I fail the range test. This grammar:

> data: range1, range2, -".".
> range1: ["0"-"9"].
> range2: [#0-#9].

> with this input:

> 5\t.

> is expected to produce the result:

> \n
> <data>
>    <range1>5</range1>
>    <range2> </range2>
> </data>

> My processor is not producing a leading newline, but I think that’s an
> error in the expected results. I don’t see why the output should include
> that leading newline. Am I overlooking something?

Mea culpa.

I don't think you are overlooking anything, but I think your test-result
evaluator is too strict.

There is no mechanism in ixml to allow any grammar + input pair to
produce any output outside the outermost element of the output.  So a
QT-based evaluator should start its comparison with the element, not
with the document node, and evaluators built with other tools should
analogously ignore the leading newline you will find in many of the
*.output.xml files.

The leading newline is there because in order to extract the XML
portions of the *.req files in the tests.zip file, I wrote a short shell
pipeline and sed script, and they cut the input up to and including the
second hash mark in the *.req file.  Since there is often (but not, if I
remember correctly, always) a blank line between the second hash mark
and the XML result, the blank line ended up in the *.output.xml files.
Since for my test result evaluator the extra whitespace was doing no
harm, I did not bother to go into each *.output.xml file and remove it.
I suspect that in a few places, you will also see explanatory comments
in the *.output.xml file, in the prolog.  Again, they were left (or in
some cases perhaps introduced by me) because I figured they were doing
no harm.

-- 
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
http://blackmesatech.com

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2022 19:06:08 UTC