Align Travis configuration with AppVeyor in #86 #96
Conversation
test/xspec.bats
Outdated
| @@ -193,6 +193,10 @@ teardown() { | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| @test "executing the Saxon XProc harness generates a report with UTF-8 encoding" { | |||
| if [ -z ${XMLCALABASH_VERSION} ]; then | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With this line, to run xspec.bats thoroughly, you have to set both XMLCALABASH_VERSION and XMLCALABASH_CP.
Can you consider checking the existence of XMLCALABASH_CP instead of XMLCALABASH_VERSION? That makes it a little bit easier to run xspec.bats on local console without .travis.yml, which I do occasionally.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The check in xspec.bats is now based on XMLCALABASH_CP instead of XMLCALABASH_VERSION (which makes more sense because XMLCalabash is properly installed only once XMLCALABASH_CP is set).
Have you got any further changes?
|
Thanks for reviewing the pull request and suggest changes. This is good to go and I'll merge into master. |
| fi | ||
|
|
||
| run java -Xmx1024m -cp ${XMLCALABASH_CP} com.xmlcalabash.drivers.Main -isource=xspec-72.xspec xspec-home=file://${TRAVIS_BUILD_DIR}/ -oresult=${TRAVIS_BUILD_DIR}/test/xspec/xspec-72-result.html ${TRAVIS_BUILD_DIR}/src/harnesses/saxon/saxon-xslt-harness.xproc | ||
| run java -cp ${SAXON_CP} net.sf.saxon.Query -s:${TRAVIS_BUILD_DIR}/test/xspec/xspec-72-result.html -qs:"declare default element namespace 'http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'; /html/head/meta[@http-equiv eq 'Content-Type']/@content = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'" !method=text |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you take the run java lines from #86? It corresponds to the initial comment of #86:
xspec.batsis also modified a bit. (in order to be more platform independent)'
'is added to XQuery. (in order to avoid conflict with the "Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS..." stderr line which is emitted when theJAVA_TOOL_OPTIONSenvironment variable is defined)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops. Already merged to master. I'll make another pull request for this...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, for once I was too quick ;-) Yes, please make another pull request so that we can trace every change. Thanks.
* 'master' of git://github.com/xspec/xspec: add XProc harness for Saxon from v0.4.0 (xspec#108) revert to commit f4811a5 as tests are failing on master xspec#97 (xspec#101) Revive @Assert and @context. Fix indent. Get the URLs back, adapted. Align Travis configuration with AppVeyor in #86 (xspec#96) Run XProc test on AppVeyor (#86) Highlight the link target (#79) Consolidate cleanup tasks in batch script(#73) Revert harnesses to v0.3.0 and add UTF-8 encoding #74 #72 (#76) Run tests with Saxon 9.7.0-15 (#77) Keep type annotations in $impl:test-items (#63)
* 'master' of git://github.com/xspec/xspec: add XProc harness for Saxon from v0.4.0 (xspec#108) revert to commit f4811a5 as tests are failing on master xspec#97 (xspec#101) Revive @Assert and @context. Fix indent. Get the URLs back, adapted. Align Travis configuration with AppVeyor in #86 (xspec#96) Run XProc test on AppVeyor (#86)
Summary
This pull request aligns the Travis configuration with the AppVeyor configuration implemented in #86.
Why
#76 introduced a test for checking that the XProc harness is working. Running XProc requires XMLCalabash which is installed in the
.travis.ymlfile. However, XMLCalabash currently comes bundled with Saxon 9.7.0.11 as highlighted by @AirQuick in #86 (comment). It is therefore useless to install it and run the test for XProc when a lower version of Saxon is used. This also makes the test suite slower.What has changed
In
.travis.ymlI added theXMLCALABASH_VERSIONin the matrix as suggested by @AirQuick in #86 (comment). This is in line with the configuration inappveyor.ymland also makes it easier to upgrade to a new version of XMLCalabash in the future.In
xspec.batsI skipped the test if the environment variableXMLCALABASH_VERSIONis not set.How to review
I tested that the Travis configuration works as expected in this Travis build (see the job logs):
@AirQuick : could you please review this pull request and see if it aligns with your pull request in #86? Once you approve this, I will merge both pull requests into master.