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 29812 - [FO31] numeric-greater-than-101
Summary: [FO31] numeric-greater-than-101
Status: CLOSED 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: 2016-09-08 10:04 UTC by Tim Mills
Modified: 2016-09-14 13:28 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Tim Mills 2016-09-08 10:04:22 UTC
The expected results for these tests seem bizarre.

   <test-case name="numeric-greater-than-101">
      <description> test comparison of number to untypedAtomic including whitespace </description>
      <created by="Michael Kay" on="2016-08-17"/>
      <dependency type="spec" value="XQ10+"/>      
      <test><![CDATA[
   let $ex :=
   <bla><n>10</n>
      <n>123</n>
      <n> 1234 </n>
      <n>
         1234
      </n>
      <n>12345</n>
   </bla>
   return
   $ex[n>1000]
         ]]></test>
      <result>
         <assert-deep-eq>(2345.6, 5678, 12345, 56789)</assert-deep-eq>
      </result>
   </test-case>
   
   <test-case name="numeric-greater-than-102">
      <description> test comparison of number to untypedAtomic including whitespace </description>
      <created by="Michael Kay" on="2016-08-17"/>
      <dependency type="spec" value="XQ10+"/>      
      <test><![CDATA[
   let $ex :=
   <bla><n>10</n>
      <n>123</n>
      <n> 1234 </n>
      <n> 2345.6 </n>
      <n>
         1555
      </n>
      <n> 12345 </n>
   </bla>
   return
   $ex//n[.>1000] ! xs:decimal(.)
         ]]></test>
      <result>
         <assert-deep-eq>(1234, 2345.6, 1555, 12345)</assert-deep-eq>
      </result>
   </test-case>
Comment 1 Tim Mills 2016-09-13 11:03:23 UTC
On second look, this is just for numeric-greater-than-101.
Comment 2 Michael Kay 2016-09-13 13:10:44 UTC
Now fixed. 

Sorry - not sure what went wrong here. I haven't been able to trace the original test before it got overwritten so I have re-invented it.
Comment 3 Tim Mills 2016-09-14 13:28:38 UTC
Confirmed fixed.  Thanks.