RE: decisions on new test cases

Here is the same information as text:

Test discussions:


>>>10/2
John: on issue #5: Need test cases for validation of SML-IF format?
Kumar: answer should be "yes".
Ginny: I agree.
RESOLUTION: WG agreed that we need test cases for validation of SML-IF format.

>>>10/16
Second Test Case Issue: does not look like there are tests that test the necessary processing to identify identical targets (section 4.2.3) E.g., bullet #2 is not tested.
Kumar: MS implementation could not test such a condition, since it supports only the SML URI reference scheme.
Pratul: We have different aliases pointing to the same element.
<johnarwe_> sml 4.2.3 #2 starts Otherwise, a model validator MUST consider both targets to be different when
Pratul: Proposal is to add this test case.
RESOLUTION: We should add a test case to cover this scenario.

>>>10/16
Fourth Test Case Issue: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.
<pratul> Ginny: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.
<Kumar> Third bullet case will fall into the optional features test bucket.
Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases for this scenario.
RESOLUTION: We should add a test case to cover this scenario.

>>>10/16
Fifth Test Case Issue: no targetRequired tests for derivation by restriction or substitution groups (there are tests for these in targetElement and targetType) - section 5.1.2.1, bullet 1.b and section 5.1.2.2 (for targetRequired).
Pratul: Proposal is to add these test cases.
Kumar: Agreed.
RESOLUTION: We should add test cases to cover this scenario.

>>>10/16
Seventh Test Case Issue: no test for section 5.2.1.2, bullet 4.
Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases for this, if COSMOS has no test cases for this scenario.
RESOLUTION: Agreed, no objections.

>>>10/16
Eighth Test Case Issue: acyclic tests do not mention "intra-document references" so I assume there may not be a test for this. The tests only mention "inter-document references".
Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases to cover intra-document acyclic constraint for intra-document references.
RESOLUTION: WG agrees with no objections.

>>>10/28
ginny: Isn't multiple schemes in an SML reference more of an extension point rather than optional feature?
MSM: propose that we label this feature as EXT not SML
Kumar: we should add additional info about our categories of optional features, e.g. testability of extension points.
[test case] need test case for non-Schema determined IDs

>>>10/23
Ginny: no test case for deref() sml:field (there is a test case for sml:selector)
John: do we want to add this test?
MSM: in favor of adding this test
WG agrees to add test case for deref() in sml:field

>>>10/28
... we can't test whether an implementation does consistency checking on multiple base uri methods
MSM: if inconsistency is known, the model is invalid
Is there a requirement to report this?
MSM: 'xml:base wins' means we prescribe what interpretation is to be placed on the model
... you recover from this error (inconsistency) this is how you recover.
[test case] a test case for consistency checking assuming that we have an implementation that does consistency checking.

>>>10/29
Need specific test for schema-complete?
<ginny> Microsoft's implementation does not support schema bindings and therefore this implementation is a test for last paragraph of 5.4.3 in IF (construction of default schema)



From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:10 AM
To: 'public-sml@w3.org'
Subject: RE: decisions on new test cases

Forgot to mention that this does not include comments on existing Cosmos test cases which are collected in Kumar's spreadsheet.

From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:08 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: decisions on new test cases


I went through the minutes from 9/18 onward and collected the following WG decisions for additional test cases.



--

ginny


Test discussions:

10/2

John: on issue #5: Need test cases for validation of SML-IF format?
Kumar: answer should be "yes".
Ginny: I agree.
RESOLUTION: WG agreed that we need test cases for validation of SML-IF format.

10/16

Second Test Case Issue: does not look like there are tests that test the necessary processing to identify identical targets (section 4.2.3) E.g., bullet #2 is not tested.
Kumar: MS implementation could not test such a condition, since it supports only the SML URI reference scheme.
Pratul: We have different aliases pointing to the same element.
<johnarwe_> sml 4.2.3 #2 starts Otherwise, a model validator MUST consider both targets to be different when
Pratul: Proposal is to add this test case.
RESOLUTION: We should add a test case to cover this scenario.

10/16

Fourth Test Case Issue: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.
<pratul> Ginny: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.
<Kumar> Third bullet case will fall into the optional features test bucket.
Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases for this scenario.
RESOLUTION: We should add a test case to cover this scenario.

10/16

Fifth Test Case Issue: no targetRequired tests for derivation by restriction or substitution groups (there are tests for these in targetElement and targetType) - section 5.1.2.1, bullet 1.b and section 5.1.2.2 (for targetRequired).
Pratul: Proposal is to add these test cases.
Kumar: Agreed.
RESOLUTION: We should add test cases to cover this scenario.

10/16

Seventh Test Case Issue: no test for section 5.2.1.2, bullet 4.
Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases for this, if COSMOS has no test cases for this scenario.
RESOLUTION: Agreed, no objections.

10/16

Eighth Test Case Issue: acyclic tests do not mention "intra-document references" so I assume there may not be a test for this. The tests only mention "inter-document references".
Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases to cover intra-document acyclic constraint for intra-document references.
RESOLUTION: WG agrees with no objections.

10/28

ginny: Isn't multiple schemes in an SML reference more of an extension point rather than optional feature?
MSM: propose that we label this feature as EXT not SML
Kumar: we should add additional info about our categories of optional features, e.g. testability of extension points.
[test case] need test case for non-Schema determined IDs

10/23

Ginny: no test case for deref() sml:field (there is a test case for sml:selector)
John: do we want to add this test?
MSM: in favor of adding this test
WG agrees to add test case for deref() in sml:field

10/28

... we can't test whether an implementation does consistency checking on multiple base uri methods
MSM: if inconsistency is known, the model is invalid
Is there a requirement to report this?
MSM: 'xml:base wins' means we prescribe what interpretation is to be placed on the model
... you recover from this error (inconsistency) this is how you recover.
[test case] a test case for consistency checking assuming that we have an implementation that does consistency checking.

10/29

Need specific test for schema-complete?
<ginny> Microsoft's implementation does not support schema bindings and therefore this implementation is a test for last paragraph of 5.4.3 in IF (construction of default schema)