On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:01:56PM -0700, Jain, Nilesh wrote: > On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 15:15 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > I will try to take an example putting this in parallel. If you were > > testing > > the Mozilla rendering on a set of complex HTML pages, would you consider > > failure to match an exact rendering at the pixel level for those pages > > to be wrong. Obviously no! This is the same for libxml2 processing on some > > complex processin/transformations, it will usually give exactly the same > > output on two runs in different environemnt, but failure to do so doesn't > > mean it's broken. > > I understand that and agree with you but one thing which still bothers > me is when I run these regression test from 2.20 against code base of > 2.22 and see around 51 test errors. Theoretically I should not see > errors if ABI behavior is constant and running in same environment. Am I > correct or missing something? > > Why I am looking from that point of view is if I include these test > cases into LSB runtime for conformance, and let say spec is based on > 2.22 and distro is running 2.24/2.25.. test cases which is confirming > the specs should not fail in same environment. > > BTW the error messages I get when I run 2.20 against 2.22 code base is: > ## XML regression tests > File ./test/xhtml1 generated an error
Please look at the difference between the ./test/xhtml1 output with 2.20 against what is expected from 2.22 This was discussed on this list during the month of August IIRC. > ## SAX1 callbacks regression tests > Got a difference for ./test/ent2 > File ./test/ent2 generated an error Same thing. Could you make a diff and check by yourselves ? > Got a difference for ./test/ent7 I saw those changes, and validated them, otherwise they would not have gone in CVS. I take a user viewpoint when I make those decisions, if you think they should not have gone in, please explain why :-) > ## Schemas regression tests > Error for ./test/schemas/any3_0.xml on ./test/schemas/any3_0.xsd failed > Error for ./test/schemas/bug303566_1.xml > on ./test/schemas/bug303566_1.xsd failed yes the XML Schemas implementation improved between those 2 versions. Don't worry, even Microsoft is being fixing their XML Schemas implementation as you can see on [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list ! And the complexity of the spec even warrant the garantee that you will never see change in interpretation of the spec, there are parts nobody is 100% sure about. This doesn't mean XSD support in libxml2 is not useful, nor that peopel are not using it. > I also see one error message while running 2.22 code base against 2.22 > code. > ## Schemas regression tests > Error for ./test/schemas/derivation-ok-extension_0.xml > on ./test/schemas/derivation-ok-extension_0.xsd failed bug in the test program itself. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
