- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:15:27 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 15/10/10 14:39, Axel Polleres wrote: > Hi all, > > a little bit of help asked kindly from you: > > I want to dive a bit more into test cases on Tuesday again, if you remember unapproved test cases and can send me pointers, I't appreciate it (would make my life harvesting the mailinglist and CVS easier) thanks! > > Axel If we are approving tests, we ought to sort the format out first so that any approved tests can be left exactly as-is. There are some outstanding issues with the test format: 1/ Various @@@ the doc. 2/ use of qt:query in update test - I have suggested use ut:request so the range is not a query. 3/ qt:data/qt:data for entailment tests I can't actually remember state of discussion - it's not used in the entailment manifest currently AFAICS. 4/ Testing the 3 protocols (query, update, http) For update protocol, we seem to have mixed that into the manifest for update tests. (e.g. "ut:result ut:success"). I'm not sure this is a good idea. Andy
Received on Saturday, 16 October 2010 14:16:04 UTC