Yeah, I don't think we have a way to differentiate the two aside from scanning the diagnostic messages. We'd likely need a new API to support that.
On 1/21/21 12:39 PM, Beckerle, Mike wrote: > So the trick I think is I need 2 independent validation statuses. > > I need to know whether the internal limited validation passed/failed > independently of the schematron validation. > > The only way I can tell those apart would be to search the diagnostics and > recognize the error message text in some reliable way, and if there are any > from the basic Limited validation, then the data is "malformed", whereas if > they are all schematron validation messages, then it was well-formed, but > invalid. > ________________________________ > From: Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 12:28 PM > To: dev@daffodil.apache.org <dev@daffodil.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [apache/incubator-daffodil] Embedded Schematron (#463) > > Yes, the two validation methods are completely separate. > > "limited" validation is essentially Daffodil calling > dfdl:checkConstraints() immediately after every element is finished > being parsed: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/daffodil-runtime1/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/processors/parsers/ElementCombinator1.scala#L70-L95 > > And we always perform this validation as long as validation mode is not > Off. So whether it's, limited, full, or custom, we will always do our > "limited" checkConstraint() validation. > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/daffodil-runtime1/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/processors/parsers/ElementCombinator1.scala#L266-L271 > > The way "full" validation works is we tee all infoset events to a second > InfosetOutputter (as XML text), and at the end of parsing we send those > XML bytes to Xerces/Schematron/custom validator for additional validation. > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/daffodil-runtime1/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/processors/DataProcessor.scala#L703-L718 > > From what I've seen, the new schematron functionality doesn't change any > of this. > > So I think this accomplishes exactly what you want. Restriction facets > will be be checked by limited validation during parse and create > appropriate validation errors, and schematron can be used at the end to > support more complicated validation like co-constraints. > > > > On 1/21/21 12:13 PM, Beckerle, Mike wrote: >> >> Question on schematron or really the new validator system generally. >> >> Can I use both Daffodil's built in "limited" validation AND also use >> schematron or other validation, or is it an either or? >> >> I have a need to use both Limited validation AND would still like to also >> use schematron. >> >> It has to do with a strategy for error recovery >> >> <choice> >> <!-- first branch --> >> .... first branch of choice is the data format >> >> <!-- second branch is used for error recovery --> >> <xs:element name="malformed" type="tns:invalidByte"/> >> </choice> >> >> <simpleType name="invalidByte" dfdl:representation="binary" >> dfdl:lengthKind="implicit"> >> <restriction base="xs:unsignedByte"> >> <maxExclusive value="0"/> <!-- can never pass. Always will be >> invalid. --> >> </restriction> >> </simpleType> >> >> So if the data format can't be parsed (it's malformed), Daffodil will >> backtrack to this malformed element which will consume 1 byte of data. And >> an infoset containing these <malformed>N</malformed> elements will be >> considered well-formed, but it will not pass validation checks that check >> the facet on the invalidByte type. >> >> So this validation will fail, indicating that the data contains "malformed" >> elements explicitly. This validation isn't really about validation at all, >> it's being used as part of recognizing malformed data but in a way that we >> can recover from the error, and try to parse again, having consumed one byte. >> >> Hence, I want this validation that is used to look for the elements that >> indicate the data is malformed, but for "real" data validation I'd like to >> also use schematron rules. >> >> That's the motivation anyway. >> ________________________________ >> From: John Wass <notificati...@github.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:20 AM >> To: apache/incubator-daffodil <incubator-daffo...@noreply.github.com> >> Cc: Beckerle, Mike <mbecke...@owlcyberdefense.com>; Push >> <p...@noreply.github.com> >> Subject: Re: [apache/incubator-daffodil] Embedded Schematron (#463) >> >> >> @jw3<https://github.com/jw3> pushed 1 commit. >> >> * >> dfb3711<https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/commit/dfb3711f1167173e4f31929e589d9d4ea4fce6cf> >> Support embedding Schematron rules in DFDL schemas. >> >> — >> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. >> View it on >> GitHub<https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/pull/463/files/bb6073d979f3334be10188bcc3d0d41cdaa2528f..dfb3711f1167173e4f31929e589d9d4ea4fce6cf> >> or >> unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALUDAZHQFNNJYWEWLHFQXTS23C7RANCNFSM4UBVTVAQ>. >> >
