21719 2013-04-16 15:27:02 +0000 Tests on require-feature/prohibit-feature 2013-05-02 10:01:18 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQuery 3 & XPath 3 Test Suite Candidate Recommendation PC Windows NT CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 christian.gruen oneil tim public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 86295 0 christian.gruen 2013-04-16 15:27:02 +0000 - well-formed-feature-2: This test case should also allow XQST0123 as result, because "qname" is no valid feature. As an alternative, the feature string could be reduced to "not:a:qname" - well-formed-feature-4: I would have expected XPST0081 as error - require-prohibit-1: XQST0120 should also be accepted here - require-prohibit-3: The current specification says that the "Serialization Feature does not have a feature name, and cannot be required or prohibited in a module.", so this test should probably return XQST0123 instead. - require-prohibit-5: XQST0120 should also be accepted here - require-all-optional-features-5-s: I would suggest to also add XQST0128 as correct result, because the spec says that a) "it is a static error [err:XQST0128] if a feature name that an implementation supports appears in a prohibit-feature option declaration and the implementation is unable to disable the feature" and b) "all-optional-features corresponds to the set of all named features that correspond to features listed in 5.2 Optional Features" 87108 1 oneil 2013-05-01 15:20:06 +0000 Bugs fixed and committed to cvs. Please see below for comments on the test cases. (In reply to comment #0) > - well-formed-feature-2: > This test case should also allow XQST0123 as result, because "qname" is no > valid feature. As an alternative, the feature string could be reduced to > "not:a:qname" Fixed > > - well-formed-feature-4: > I would have expected XPST0081 as error Fixed already by Tim some time ago > > - require-prohibit-1: > XQST0120 should also be accepted here I am rejecting this proposed change. I would think that during the static checking phase duplicates and clashing features would be caught. If you disagree please feel free to re-open the bug. > > - require-prohibit-3: > The current specification says that the "Serialization Feature does > not have a feature name, and cannot be required or prohibited in a > module.", > so this test should probably return XQST0123 instead. Test has been removed > > - require-prohibit-5: > XQST0120 should also be accepted here I am rejecting this proposed change. I would think that during the static checking phase duplicates and clashing features would be caught. If you disagree please feel free to re-open the bug. > > - require-all-optional-features-5-s: > I would suggest to also add XQST0128 as correct result, because the > spec says that a) "it is a static error [err:XQST0128] if a feature name > that an implementation supports appears in a prohibit-feature option > declaration and the implementation is unable to disable the feature" and > b) "all-optional-features corresponds to the set of all named features that > correspond to features listed in 5.2 Optional Features" This test looks to have been fixed already 87122 2 christian.gruen 2013-05-01 20:54:18 +0000 Yes, I agree with your reasoning; thanks. 87152 3 oneil 2013-05-02 10:01:18 +0000 *** Bug 21839 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***