- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:45:42 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11813 --- Comment #5 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2011-01-26 18:45:42 UTC --- The original design of the test suite seems to have been that if a test depends on an optional feature, then it should go in a test group (in the catalog) whose name implies a dependency on that feature. However, there doesn't seem to be a section of the catalog for tests that depend on the input document being pre-validated outside the query ("construction from a PSVI" in spec-terminology.) So it's not obvious where one would move these tests to indicate such a dependency. Some other tests such as Constr-cont-constrmod-2 simply give two alternative results, one for validated input and one for unvalidated. Since there is no indication of the relationship of test results to processor features, this is a very unsatisfactory resolution. In the XQuery Update tests we have moved in the direction of having the metadata for a test group describe its dependencies on optional features. For example: <GroupInfo> <title>Revalidation Declaration = strict</title> <description/> <depends-on> <feature supported="true">revalidation:strict</feature> <description>These tests are designed to be run by a product that supports revalidation mode strict</description> <spec-citation spec="XQUPDATE" section-number="2.2.1" section-title="Revalidation Declaration" section-pointer="id-revalidation-declaration"/> </depends-on> </GroupInfo> I think this is the right strategic direction: we should put these tests in a group and label it <depends-on> <feature supported="true">input-construction:PSVI</feature> </depends-on> and if appropriate, include another copy of the test with <depends-on> <feature supported="true">input-construction:infoset</feature> </depends-on> and a different expected result. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 18:45:47 UTC