[Exist-development] Fwd: Reporting on QT3 test results for the 3.1 Specs

[Joe W. <jo...@gm...>]

Hi all,

I notice eXist isn't included in this round of tests.  I'd be
interested to know what are the barriers or obstacles to running the
tests and participating in these exercises?

I imagine the release of eXist 3.0 is a higher priority for the
project than passing a not-yet-final spec, among others.  But I think
that eXist's presence at some point would help the WG's work and
strengthen the spec's goal of being supported by many implementations.
Even if eXist doesn't promise complete XQ3.1 coverage (heck, they keep
adding new features like templates!), the areas it does support are, I
think, quite well developed - and this hard work would be worth
celebrating through inclusion in these tests.

Joe


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: O'Neil Delpratt <on...@sa...>
Date: Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:40 AM
Subject: Reporting on QT3 test results for the 3.1 Specs
To: pub...@w3...


Dear All,

I have re-generated the reports on the implementation results received
for the QT3 test suite. See update:
http://dev.w3.org/2011/QT3-test-suite/ReportingResults31/report.html
We now have three implementations for XQuery 3.1, with one being
anonymous. However we only have one for XPath 3.1.

We have been working on the main page today. Specifically the stats on
the optional features. We found that there were some overlap reported
in the passes and failures. For example under ‘staticTyping’ it is
reported that there are 75 test not being passed by any
implementation. Under the 'higherOrderFunction’ feature we have 18
test passed by no implementation. If you inspect the
higherOrderFunction tests more closely we will see that 17 of these
tests depend on staticTyping therefore the underlying reason for the
higherOrderFunction failures is to do with staticTyping. With what I
have said in mind we think it helpful to show the combination of
optional features for the test case.

I welcome feedback on your preference of presentation on the Optional
Features section. I find 2) much more useful:

1) http://dev.w3.org/2011/QT3-test-suite/ReportingResults31/report.html#optFeatures
2) http://dev.w3.org/2011/QT3-test-suite/ReportingResults31/report.html#optComboFeatures


Using 1) or 2) we observe that we have 75 tests with dependency on
staticTyping not being passed by any implementation (including those
with combinations of other dependencies).  I would like to ask if it
still merits having tests on static typing?

kind regards,


-------------------------------
O'Neil Delpratt
Software Developer, Saxonica Limited
Email: on...@sa...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ond1
Tel: +44 118 946 5894
Web: http://www.saxonica.com
Saxonica Community site: http://dev.saxonica.com
Bug tracking site: https://saxonica.plan.io/