Re: Preemption in Test 403c

Perfect. I admittedly didn't see that preprocessing step. Case closed.

-- 
TrackTik is proud to be exhibiting at ASIS International in Atlanta
from September
29th to October 2nd. Be sure to visit us at *booth #4047!*

Markus Weiland - VP Technology

Office: +1-888-454-5606
Email: markus@tracktik.com
Visit us at TrackTik.com <http://www.tracktik.com/>


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Yes.   conf:targetfail="" sets the target of the transition to be the
> <conf:fail> state.
>
>  (The .txml files are meant to be transformed into scxml by means of an
> XSLT style sheet.  We provide sample ones for the javascript and xpath data
> models.  If you look at those transformations, you'll see that <conf:fail>
> gets converted into a <final> state with id="fail" and conf:targetfail=""
> gets converted into target="fail".  The idea behind this abstraction is to
> let platforms tweak the tests to suit their environments.  For example, you
> might want to write pass/fail results to a DB.  You can do this by editing
> the .xslt file rather than having to edit each test by hand.)
>
> On 7/31/2014 11:50 AM, Markus Weiland wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
>  Thanks for your explanation. Much clearer now.
>
>  So just to confirm, the transition attribute ``conf:targetfail=""`` in
> the event1 transition of p0s3 is considered to specify a transition out of
> s0 (presumably into ``conf:fail``)?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The transition in P0s4 is a targetless transition, and thus has an empty
>> exit set and does not conflict with any other transition. Therefore it is
>> never preempted.   For the same reason, the transition in p0s1 is not
>> preempted.
>>
>> The transition for event1 in p0s3 has a non-empty exit set (namely s0 and
>> all its children), so it conflicts with and is preempted by the transition
>> in p0s2.  For event2 the transtion in p0s3 also conflicts with the
>> transition in p0s2, but in this case it does the preempting (since
>> transitions in descendents preempt transitions in ancestors.)
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2014 10:09 PM, Markus Weiland wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can someone please explain, in test case 403c, why the transition for
>>> "event1" is supposed to be preempted by p0s2 for the first transition in
>>> p0s3, but is not supposed to be preempted for the same "event1" for the
>>> catchall transition in p0s4?
>>>
>>> In other words, what makes the transition in p0s3 different from the
>>> transition in p0s4 so that it gets preempted? Also, for the sake of
>>> understanding, is the transition for "event1" in p0s1 preempted?
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Barnett
>> Genesys
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jim Barnett
> Genesys
>