Re: Call for Concensus: Update SPARQL 1.1 test suite to align with changes introduced in RDF 1.1

Having heard no objection to the tests themselves, I’ll merge the PR.

Updating the existing tests/implementation report to point to gh-pages is a separate issue involving W3C Staff.

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 5, 2015, at 3:07 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> (My PR #21 neither marks the old tests as obsolete, nor removes the tests. It simply removes the obsoleted tests from the manifest list. I had hoped this would very quickly be followed by a PR for #20 which would remove them entirely.)
>> 
>> I think if we remove the tests from mf:entries, but keep the test definitions (and test files) with the approval status of Obsolete, that accomplishes what you want to do. Would that be okay? I don’t think we can or should completely eliminate history.
> 
> I would very much prefer actually cleaning up the test suite, because it’s full of cruft. And doing things like replacing obsolete tests with newer versions makes that problem worse. A colleague of mine just got tripped up by the cruft in this test suite last week, leading him to mistakenly run non-normative tests and waste a lot of time trying to figure out why they were failing.
> 
> I don’t think we should "completely eliminate history”, either. However, I think Andy’s suggestion nicely avoids having to do that. The SPARQL test suite as approved by the WG should stay frozen, but with an obvious note pointing to the cleaned up and maintained version that is now being worked on by this CG. Doesn’t that solve both concerns?
> 
>>> Are you suggesting we leave the implementation report frozen, but change the test suite in-place (at least in appearance based on the test suite URIs)? I would think both of these need to either stay frozen or be changed, but together.
>> 
>> I was suggesting that we keep the implementation report stable, with a minor update to note the new location. This report was used for the CR transition, so it should remain unchanged for the historical record.
>> 
>> My opinion was that we could update the tests themselves, as long as references from the implementation report don’t change meaning. This is more friendly for developers going forward, and addresses some concerns about tests expecting to be run from a specific location. But, I can also see the value in keeping them frozen, given adequate notice about an update location.
> 
> Regarding the SPARQL test suite, as far as I know there is no concern about where the tests are hosted. I don’t think there are any issues to hosting somewhere different than the URIs being used in the manifests. As far as “adequate notice” goes, I don’t see any downside here regardless of the decision, as RDF 1.1 systems are currently failing the approved test suite. So things either stay the same or get better.
> 
> thanks,
> .greg
>

Received on Sunday, 8 November 2015 20:50:41 UTC