Re: Test suite specs

I agree Dom and Yves that we should discuss it in Lyon so that everyone
knows. Also I have one or two others to add to that discussion in Lyon
before i reproduce the output :)

Thanks,
Leroy

On 24 October 2012 14:13, Dominic Jones <Dominic.Jones@scss.tcd.ie> wrote:

> Cool, will add this for discussion during the test-suite session.
>
> Dom
>
>
> --
> Dominic Jones | Research Assistant
> KDEG, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
>
>
>
>
> On 24 Oct 2012, at 14:04, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dom,
> >
> > Sure. While we work out the issues, there is probably no need for the
> Web site to be always up-to-date. A link to Github would make clear to any
> potential implementers where to get the files.
> >
> > There are probably ways to update the Web site automatically, or at
> least partially automatically. If only the content of a file changes, one
> should be able to just update it from Github. We do that with batch files
> in our development tree. Anyways, maybe something to talk about in Lyon.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -yves
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dominic Jones [mailto:Dominic.Jones@scss.tcd.ie]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 6:54 AM
> > To: Yves Savourel
> > Cc: 'Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public'
> > Subject: Re: Test suite specs
> >
> > Hi Yves.
> >
> > There is an additional problem in that every time we make a change to
> the output or input files we spend a great deal of time updating the
> website with new links. We're dealing with 100+ files now… So I'd like to
> discuss the below during Lyon next week, and agree on the exact format they
> / we would like to see, so that we're not spending an excess of time
> re-generating output files of their file names as the target moves. One
> solution to this is that we just use github for the collection of input and
> output files, making the website redundant, until we're sure that the
> creases have been iron out in exactly how we want the output to be formed.
> Its much easier to just update GitHub than it is to update the website.
> >
> > Are you happy to spend some time next week discussing this, leaving this
> thread open until then?
> >
> > Hope that makes sense.
> >
> > Dom
> > --
> > Dominic Jones | Research Assistant
> > KDEG, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 24 Oct 2012, at 12:47, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Leroy, all,
> >>
> >> I would tend to disagree :)
> >>
> >> Those files are test results that are going to be (and are already in
> our case) used in unit tests in the builds of some production-grade
> applications. They simply must be predictable and consistent. Not all
> comparison tool can deal with different ordering of the lines for example,
> or present/absent white spaces.
> >>
> >> The only way to have a predictable line order is to sort the attributes
> alphabetically. So I think we should do that.
> >>
> >> For the trailing whitespace, it’s doesn’t matter if they are there or
> not, but they need to be either always there or never.
> >>
> >> We could update the files to reflect that, but it is more efficient in
> the long run to make sure the process you are using to generate them does
> it by itself.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -yves
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Leroy Finn [mailto:finnle@tcd.ie]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:08 AM
> >> To: Fredrik Liden
> >> Cc: Multilingual Web LT-TESTS Public
> >> Subject: Re: Test suite specs
> >>
> >> The alphabetical order is not a major problem for my comparison engine
> once the output lines in the actual files are correct.  You can include
> them if you want its no big deal if you don't want the trailing tab and
> empty line at the end. The main thing is that the output lines are correct
> and the ordering is not that important.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Leroy
> >>
> >> On 23 October 2012 21:36, Fredrik Liden <fliden@enlaso.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Leroy,
> >>
> >> Thanks for adding me.
> >>
> >> In example 6 and 7 there is an instance of
> >>
> >> <item type="title" its:translate="yes">
> >>
> >> The test suite result is:
> >> /doc/info[1]/item[1]     its:translate="yes"
> >> /doc/info[1]/item[1]/@type     its:translate="no"
> >> /doc/info[1]/item[1]/@its:translate      its:translate="no"
> >>
> >> Is this correct or should  the attributes in alphabetical order? I
> think there might be instances in some other categories as well.
> >> /doc/info[1]/item[1]     its:translate="yes"
> >> /doc/info[1]/item[1]/@its:translate      its:translate="no"
> >> /doc/info[1]/item[1]/@type     its:translate="no"
> >>
> >> An email from 8/31 that mentions alphabetical order since the xml
> parsers do not guarantee attribute order.
> >>
> >> Btw, I noticed each line in the test files ends with  \t\r\n. (Tab and
> Linebreak),  I wonder if the trailing \t should be there. There’s also a
> trailing empty row at the end of each result file, should we include that?
> >>
> >> Just in case we need to update our current test result engine so the
> file comparison test passes.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Fredrik
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>