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
Visit us at <>

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jim Barnett <> 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 <>
> 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

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 16:22:11 UTC