[Bug 21910] [XT3TS] Many tests on XSLT 3.0 have xsl version 2.0 in the xsl:transform/stylesheet instruction

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21910

Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #4 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> ---
> Our primary purpose is tests for 3.0 processors

Yes, I agree. I was just trying to be complete. 

> They should be left alone. On the other hand, if you changed the predicate to 
> [contains(., 'XSLT10') and not(contains(., 'XSLT20')]] that would indicate a 
> problem.

Tried it, result: 1696 items. I would assume these have been moved from the 1.0
testsuite and have been given a version number of 2.0, but the spec-support
number remained 1.0.

Since 2.0 processors may behave differently in BC mode, and because of your
comment on the focus on 3.0, I will leave these tests alone (I wouldn't even
know where to begin).

----------

About 3.0 tests. I made a wrong assumption: some tests have been mirrored for
3.0 and 2.0 because of differences in test results. It would be wrong for those
mirrored tests to maintain two identical files with only a version difference.

If I change the query as follows, the result is only 32 tests:

    /cat:test-set/cat:test-case
    [cat:dependencies/cat:spec/@value = 'XSLT30+']
    /cat:test/cat:stylesheet
    [let $f := @file return 
    count(
       /cat:test-set/cat:test-case
       [cat:dependencies/cat:spec/@value != 'XSLT30+']
       /cat:test/cat:stylesheet[@file = $f]) =0]
    /doc(@file)/(xsl:stylesheet|xsl:transform)
    /@version[normalize-space(.) != '3.0']

I have fixed those tests. It is possible that some of these may also work for
XSLT20, I didn't check extensively whether all these tests only use 3.0
features.

--------

About 2.0 tests:

> Resulting in 111 items of which roughly half seems to be in error (1.0 where
> 2.0 is expected because not testing backwards compatibility or 1.0 behavior)

I am less confident in changing these, so unless issues come up, I will leave
them for now.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 03:13:32 UTC