Re: addressing JP-5 (was: Re: comments JP-4 how to proceed?)

On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:08 PM, 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?

I believe there are more cases where path semantics aren't being fully tested.


Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 16:04:26 UTC