Re: Change to SCXML Test 298

There is no conf:invalidParamLocation in the tests right now.  How 
would  it differ from conf:invalidLocation?  I'm maintaining sample JS 
and Xpath  xslt files so I would  need to know what to put in them.

P.S.  I remember a bit more on the discussion of invalid values for 
'name' in <data>.  Since 'name' is required to be of type 'id', if you 
put in an invalid name, you have a syntactically invalid  document. The 
conformance section of  the spec says that the behavior of the 
interpreter is undefined when it is given an syntactically invalid 
document, so there's no way to write a test for this case (the document 
will fail schema validation, but you're not required to validate.)

On 6/19/2014 6:29 AM, Gavin Kistner wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Gavin Kistner <phrogz@me.com> wrote:
>> I think that in test 298 perhaps this code:
>>     <donedata>
>>      <param conf:name="3" conf:location="2"/>
>>      </donedata>
>>
>> should be changed to this:
>>     <donedata>
>>      <param conf:name="3" conf:invalidLocation=""/>
>>      </donedata>
>>
>> Per previous discussions, just because a location was not predeclared does not make it invalid in all data models. (Right?)
>>
>> Perhaps there should further be an invalidName, perhaps tested independently. (Perhaps there already is and I’ve not yet reached that test :)
> Actually, I wish to change this suggestion. invalidLocation is for *writing* to an invalid location during <assign>. In this case (and in test 343) we want to READ from an invalid location for param. As such I would recommend instead conf:invalidParamLocation for both tests.
>
> (In my very permissive data model, I am able to create an invalid location for <assign> by using a system variable, e.g. starting with underscore. This is valid for reading, however, and so I need another, different technique to simulate this.)

-- 
Jim Barnett
Genesys

Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 13:46:17 UTC