Steve, Yes, you got a point. I would define a 'semantic equivalence' as just considering elements, attributes, and nodes that can represent property values (i.e., text nodes and CDATA section? ) because the CDL spec does not say anything about how to treat other types of nodes such as comment nodes (as you pointed out). One thing I cannot decide is whether we should allow extra attributes (except ones in the CDL namespace). An example is xmlns:* attributes -- we may want to let an implementation decide how (where) namespaces are specified and just want to care equivalence of QNames. Best Regards, Jun Steve Loughran wrote:
Stuart Schaefer wrote:
I did not receive Jun's document in my email, so I apologize for not having read it before our meeting. Here are my thoughts as discussed at today's meeting.
1) Use the RDF approach. CDL test documents should be specified as pairs. Pre and post parsing. Each of our DOM/XOM engines can spit out the final results of parsing as a CDL.
Having it as separate documents would be slightly more fiddly, but could permit more usages. Of course, in theory. XSL permits the generation of separate documents from a unified source, just as xml:include goes the other way. they say.
2) I don't think it is worth the time to create an automated "equivalence" tester for comparing the CDL provided in the test case output with the output of our own parser. We should be able to spot check results for compliance easily enough. Just my opinion. Document equivalence is more of an XML problem than a CDL one.
no, no, we must have automated test validation, otherwise -no automated tests. the trick is to have validation that is not too-strict to parse or too-loose to let things by.
This is the axis2 comparator. It recurses down the graph asserting that -elements and namespaces match -attributes are present and matching values (order is ignored) -all child nodes match
personally I'd skip comments as we dont spec what happens to them, but otherwise this is the comparison routine I'm going to use. It aint canonical xml, but its a good 'semantic equivalence' test.
public static void compare(Element ele, OMElement omele) throws Exception { if (ele == null && omele == null) { return; } else if (ele != null && omele != null) { TestCase.assertEquals("Element name not correct", ele.getLocalName(), omele.getLocalName()); if (omele.getNamespace() != null) { TestCase.assertEquals("Namespace URI not correct", ele.getNamespaceURI(), omele.getNamespace().getName());
}
//go through the attributes NamedNodeMap map = ele.getAttributes(); Iterator attIterator = omele.getAllAttributes(); OMAttribute omattribute; Attr domAttribute; String DOMAttrName; while (attIterator != null && attIterator.hasNext() && map == null) { omattribute = (OMAttribute) attIterator.next(); Node node = map.getNamedItemNS( omattribute.getNamespace().getName(), omattribute.getLocalName()); if (node.getNodeType() == Node.ATTRIBUTE_NODE) { Attr attr = (Attr) node; TestCase.assertEquals(attr.getValue(), omattribute.getAttributeValue()); } else { throw new OMException("return type is not a Attribute"); }
} Iterator it = omele.getChildren(); NodeList list = ele.getChildNodes(); for (int i = 0; i < list.getLength(); i++) { Node node = list.item(i); if (node.getNodeType() == Node.ELEMENT_NODE) { TestCase.assertTrue(it.hasNext()); OMNode tempOmNode = (OMNode) it.next(); while (tempOmNode.getType() != OMNode.ELEMENT_NODE) { TestCase.assertTrue(it.hasNext()); tempOmNode = (OMNode) it.next(); } compare((Element) node, (OMElement) tempOmNode); } }
} else { throw new Exception("One is null"); } }
3) Is it possible to defer the lazy reference tests to the Component Model test phase? In CDL you need to simply verify that the document is properly formed, not that the value turned out as expected. That is the responsibility of the Deployment API and Component Model.
Exactly.