Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sint tagging #579

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 9, 2024
Merged

Sint tagging #579

merged 2 commits into from
Apr 9, 2024

Conversation

guusdk
Copy link
Member

@guusdk guusdk commented Mar 14, 2024

A new annotation is introduced (SpecificationReference) that can be used to annotate a SINT test.

These properties are available in the annotation:

  • document: Iidentifier for a specification document, such as 'RFC 6120' or 'XEP-0485'
  • section: Identifier for a section (or paragraph), such as '6.2.1'
  • quote: A quotation of relevant text from the section

The SINT execution framework is modified so that two new configuration options are available:

  • enabledSpecifications
  • disabledSpecifications

These operate on the value of the document property of the annotation. Their usage is comparable
to that of the pre-existing enabledTests and disabledTest configuration options.

Execution output now includes the document, section and quote that's on the annotated test, when
the test fails. This allows an end-user to easily correspond a test failure with a particular
specification.

@guusdk guusdk force-pushed the sint_tagging branch 2 times, most recently from 9589b52 to dd41486 Compare March 14, 2024 13:39
@guusdk guusdk requested a review from Flowdalic March 14, 2024 13:48
@guusdk guusdk force-pushed the sint_tagging branch 3 times, most recently from e50908c to 0ac2b8a Compare March 14, 2024 17:33
Copy link
Member

@Flowdalic Flowdalic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me in general. See two remarks inline.

At first I thought that as simply tag-based system would be better. But I am sold on the current approach too. Looks very sensible.

@guusdk guusdk requested a review from Flowdalic March 19, 2024 14:04
@guusdk
Copy link
Member Author

guusdk commented Apr 5, 2024

I believe I've processed all review comments.

@guusdk guusdk requested a review from Flowdalic April 5, 2024 12:54
Copy link
Member

@Flowdalic Flowdalic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking good, only two minors things.

@guusdk guusdk requested a review from Flowdalic April 9, 2024 12:41
A new annotation is introduced (`SpecificationReference`) that can be used to annotate a SINT test class

The properties are available in the annotation:
- `document`: Identifier for a specification document, such as 'RFC 6120' or 'XEP-0485'

The pre-existing `SmackIntegrationTest` annotation has now received two new properties:
- `section`: Identifier for a section (or paragraph), such as '6.2.1'
- `quote`: A quotation of relevant text from the section
These are expected to be used in context of the `SpecificationReference` annotation.

The SINT execution framework is modified so that two new configuration options are available:
- `enabledSpecifications`
- `disabledSpecifications`

These operate on the value of the `document` property of the annotation. Their usage is comparable
to that of the pre-existing `enabledTests` and `disabledTest` configuration options.

Execution output now includes the document, section and quote that's on the annotated test, when
the test fails. This allows an end-user to easily correspond a test failure with a particular
specification.
This applies the new features from the previous commit, and applies them to pre-existing tests.
@Flowdalic Flowdalic added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 9, 2024
Merged via the queue into igniterealtime:master with commit 211cf34 Apr 9, 2024
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants