This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 28837 - JSON function tests (minor issues)
Summary: JSON function tests (minor issues)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XQuery 3 & XPath 3 Test Suite (show other bugs)
Version: Candidate Recommendation
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: O'Neil Delpratt
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-06-22 13:09 UTC by Christian Gruen
Modified: 2015-08-04 10:50 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Christian Gruen 2015-06-22 13:09:45 UTC
1. json-doc-018:

The new default is 'use-first' (see Bug 28771)
 
2. json-doc-error-001:

The spec says that "fn:json-doc($H, $M) is equivalent to the function composition fn:unparsed-text($H) => fn:parse-json($M);", so I would probably expect FOUT1170 as error. If we do not want to reuse error codes of fn:unparsed-text, some additional error codes may need to be specified.

3. fn-parse-json-943:

Strictly spoken, the supplied function is not of type "function(xs:string) as xs:string". Depending on the outcome of Bug 28836, the test case may be right or wrong.
Comment 1 O'Neil Delpratt 2015-07-17 12:32:46 UTC
(In reply to Christian Gruen from comment #0)
> 1. json-doc-018:
> 
> The new default is 'use-first' (see Bug 28771)

This test case has been fixed by Josh

>  
> 2. json-doc-error-001:
> 
> The spec says that "fn:json-doc($H, $M) is equivalent to the function
> composition fn:unparsed-text($H) => fn:parse-json($M);", so I would probably
> expect FOUT1170 as error. If we do not want to reuse error codes of
> fn:unparsed-text, some additional error codes may need to be specified.

I agree with you on this one. I wonder if the error code needs replacing with the one you have indicated (i.e. FOUT1170)?

> 
> 3. fn-parse-json-943:
> 
> Strictly spoken, the supplied function is not of type "function(xs:string)
> as xs:string". Depending on the outcome of Bug 28836, the test case may be
> right or wrong.

Again I agree with you. The test case need modifying
Comment 2 O'Neil Delpratt 2015-07-17 13:44:52 UTC
The WG has discussed Christian initial comment and made the folowing decision:

1.
Agree and changed in test case.

2. 
Agree to add the error code FOUT170 to expected outcomes

3.
Pushing back on this as the bug #28836 has been resolved.
Resolution: no change to the test case.
Comment 3 O'Neil Delpratt 2015-07-30 13:07:13 UTC
(In reply to O'Neil Delpratt from comment #2)
> The WG has discussed Christian initial comment and made the folowing
> decision:
> 
> 1.
> Agree and changed in test case.
> 
> 2. 
> Agree to add the error code FOUT170 to expected outcomes

Error code has been added to the test case

> 
> 3.
> Pushing back on this as the bug #28836 has been resolved.
> Resolution: no change to the test case.


I think this bug issue can be closed now if you agree
Comment 4 Debbie Lockett 2015-08-04 10:50:34 UTC
2. The error code change was mistakenly made for test case json-doc-error-002, rather than the intended json-doc-error-001. I have modified both tests to correct this, and get the fix as agreed.