Issue #4364: Design a new format of suppression dtd schema to support XPath queries

[timurt]

#4364

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #4427 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4427   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.99%   99.99%           
=======================================
  Files         285      285           
  Lines       15297    15297           
  Branches     3482     3482           
=======================================
  Hits        15296    15296           
  Partials        1        1

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a8874c6...6f38c1b. Read the comment docs.

[rnveach]

#4364 (comment)

1. Please add the new element to the suppression dtd schema;
2. Bump schema version;

I thought we were extending existing schema?
If we make brand new DTD type, than it seems we don't need to rename suppress tag to be suppress-xpath? You are basically double defining it as an xpath. By the DTD declaration and the tag name.

Also, should we really merge this DTD by itself even though we aren't using it for anything yet?
Why don't we wait on a basic code implementation to make sure there are no hidden issues before merging? I don't see how delaying can hurt anything.

[MEZk]

I thought we were extending existing schema?

1. The existing suppression dtd schema should be extended. @timurt please update the format of the existing one.

Also, should we really merge this DTD by itself even though we aren't using it for anything yet?

2. It will not affect any code or SuppressionLoader as the version of the schema will be 1.2. The next step will be Support suppression-xpath element in SuppressionLoader #4421 and Mapper of XPath expressions onto AST nodes #4369. We agreed on the element name and its attributes, that is why I believe that we can add the schema. The format of the new element is pretty similar to suppression element, that is why I think that there will not be any problems/typos.

[romani]

@timurt ,
please read my comment at #4364 (comment) for name of dtd.

[MEZk]

Why do we need id?

[rnveach]

How else are you going to distinguish suppressing a specific check when multiple instances of the check are defined?

[MEZk]

Forgot about the fact that we can have multiple modules configured.

@timurt
Ignore my comment

[rnveach]

Feel free to merge @romani.