Add more XML attribute unit tests for SI-9047 #78
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| val xml = <foo bar="apple" /> | ||
| assertEquals(Group(Text("apple")), xml \ "@bar") | ||
| // assertEquals(NodeSeq.fromSeq(Seq(Text("apple"))), xml \ "@bar") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we get rid of this comment ? Advance sorries if it feels very nit picky.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch. Looks like I put that there on purpose. It is what the test would be if we used the proposed change in issue 43. Granted, I didn't leave these comments consistently.
|
Ok this seems fine to me, whatever be the stand on the parent issue. I will merge these unit tests. |
biswanaths
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2015
Add more XML attribute unit tests for SI-9047
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Some tests to document what the current behavior is for the sake of discussion in issue #43.