Re: addressing JP-5

On 27/02/12 21:08, Axel Polleres wrote:
>> I think the issue here is that it sounds like the test suite isn't
>> currently covering enough cases to reveal the differences in the
>> implementations that JP-5 mentions. We should make sure we agree
>> with the semantics in the test case JP-5 proposes, and then add it
>> to the test suite (along with any other tests we can think of that
>> might cover un-tested parts of the path semantics).
> A minimum to address the comment would be to add the example JP-5
> proposes as a test case, yes? Or do you have the feeling that
> further ones are needed?

Jeen's comment says Sesame does not the path tests that involve counting.

If we make any changes, new tests are needed.


Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 21:41:30 UTC