Batch validation of computer samples against their XSD #102
Conversation
| usage() { | ||
| cat <<EOF | ||
| Usage: ${BASE_COMMAND:-$(basename "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")} [ADDITIONAL_ARGS] | ||
|
|
||
| Produces a validation report for a file set designated in the pipeline \"${XPROC_FILE}\" | ||
| EOF | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is usage even callable when you want to know how to use it? I presume this is based in our previous conversation about scripts that may likely runt without arguments perhaps?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup, it sure is! good spotting, what do you recommend?
|
|
||
| For which capabilities can we write XSpec or meaningfully test and confirm (expose and document) in other ways, including | ||
|
|
||
| - `xsl:message` behavior including terminate="yes" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In case you're not already aware of it, XSpec can test terminating messages
https://github.com/xspec/xspec/wiki/Testing-Dynamic-Errors
I don't know a way to make XSpec test non-terminating xsl:message instructions, though. That's why I gave the xslt3-functions message handler an option to emit a processing instruction instead of xsl:message. The idea is to use the message in production and the PI (a "mock" message) when testing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This suggests that one step toward testing those requirements would be to use xslt3-functions message handling for all the messages. That is an awesome idea and not out of line with other plans or concepts.
| For which capabilities can we write XSpec or meaningfully test and confirm (expose and document) in other ways, including | ||
|
|
||
| - `xsl:message` behavior including terminate="yes" | ||
| - side effects such as `xsl:result-document`? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You probably already know that external transformations can handle XSLT that includes xsl:result-document. Beyond just not erroring out, I guess a test scenario can check availability of, or read the contents of, the file you expect to have been created.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did not know that but it makes sense, thanks @galtm, very helpful indeed.
Committer Notes
Addresses #101
All Submissions:
Changes to Core Features: