Re: New tests to cover missing algebraic forms

Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Lee Feigenbaum <> [2007-08-13 15:31-0400]
>> Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>>> Per my ACTION, I've added 6 new tests to cover *some* common, missing
>>> algebraic forms.  4 were added to data-r2/optional and 2 were added to
>>> data-r2/algebra.  Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you consider
>>> uncovering untested bugs a good thing), RDFLib does *not* pass any of
>>> these tests.  I've gone over them several times to verify the expected
>>> results.  At the very least the data, queries, and results are
>>> well-formed (no parsing compliants).  
>> Thanks, Chimezie.
>> I added a trailing period to algebra/join-combo-graph-2.ttl and to 
>> optional/complex-data-1.ttl and to optional/result-complex*.ttl to get the 
>> parser I'm using to be happy. I also removed a stray " from a namespace 
>> declaration in result-opt-complex-2.ttl .
>>> The new tests are:
>>> Algebra form: Join(LeftJoin(BGP(..),{..}),Join(BGP(..),Union(..,..)))
>>> Comment: Tests nested combination of Join with a BGP / OPT and a BGP /
>>> PREFIX :    <http://example/>
>>> SELECT ?a ?y ?d ?z
>>> {     ?a :p ?c OPTIONAL { ?a :r ?d }.     ?a ?p 1 { ?p a ?y } UNION { ?a 
>>> ?z ?p } }
>> The result set here has two bindings for ?y. I'm guessing that one (the one 
>> bound to a literal) should be ?d but even then I don't think I'd agree with 
>> the test. Does the test assume RDF entailment (specifically knowing that if 
>> :a :b :c then :b a rdf:Property)?
> algae fails this test with the following graph differences:
>   - <http://example/x1>|NULL|NULL|"4"^^<>                                                  |
>   + <http://example/x1>|NULL|"4"^^<>|<>"|
> meaning algae misses a solution (-) and finds one (+) for which there
> is no corresponding solution in the reference graph.

Eric and I both pass this one with the result set fix. Checking it in...

(Not sure why I thought otherwise, must have misread the test. Apologies).


Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 14:21:10 UTC