Community
Participate
Working Groups
As suggested in comment 28 in bug 112284 <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=112284#c28>, we should investigate using the KDE XML Catalog test suite for testing our implementation. The original source was mentioned under http://markmail.org/message/g5dgrzqy3w7e4gr5 KDE has since been switched to Subversion, and i found the test suite at: svn co svn://anonsvn.kde.org/home/kde/trunk/kdenonbeta/kdom/catalog/TestSuite@718414 I'm assuming we need an IP QC if this suite is to be added to the WTP source editing build - the current license looks like this: Copyright 2005 Frans Englich <frans.englich@telia.com> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is fur- nished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FIT- NESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. (that's fairly liberal, isn't it?) I'm going to try and run the test against the WTP XML Catalog implementation, and add any bugs as linked to this report. You may assign the bug to me: jesper@selskabet.org
Added link to bug 112248
Bummer, I meant bug 112284.
(In reply to comment #0) > I'm assuming we need an IP QC if this suite is to be added to the WTP source > editing build - the current license looks like this: Yes, we'll need a CQ for this. Can you attach a ZIP version of the test suite to this bug, as we'll need that for the CQ. Nitin I don't mind working this through the CQ process. I've already done this for the XQuery/Xpath 2.0 test suite from the W3C, and doing the same for the W3C DOM Level 1 test suite. What would also help Jesper, is if there was already a set of Junit tests for this test suite created. You can take a look at what I've done in XSL Tools for the W3C Test suite as a starting point. I ended up writing an XSLT to generate the necessary Java JUnits for each of the tests that needed to be executed. org.eclipse.wst.xml.xpath2.processor.tests
Created attachment 138720 [details] ZIP archive of KDE XML Catalog tests As exported from Subversion, for IPlog purposes. svn export svn://anonsvn.kde.org/home/kde/trunk/kdenonbeta/kdom/catalog/TestSuite@718414 I'll figure out how to run the tests from JUnit. If you want to keep the QC together, you'll have to wait for my test cases, I can't really commit to a date, but it'll be before M1. :-)
No, I can get the XML Catalog Tests included separately with out the necessary JUnit tests. I figure it may take it a bit to go through IP with the backlog that currently exists. I'll see about getting the CQ submitted though tonight so we aren't waiting on it. I'm going to tentatively target this for the 3.2 time frame, but no guarantee that it'll make it.
I've submitted the CQ for this, so it's at least in the queue to be reviewed.
We are getting closer, the plan is to maintain and migrate part of the above set of files and tests to being maintained officially at eclipse. We have aggreement from one of the parties to relicense his contributions as EPL, still waiting on the other party.
Created attachment 144524 [details] Cleaned up distribution of KDE's OASIS Catalog test suite, under EPL v1.0. This ZIP contains a git repository with some minor changes, but most of all the change to the Eclipse license. This was cleared by the two copyright holders(me and Rob Lugt), and discussed with David Carver, Sharon Corbett, and Barb Cochrane. If you don't want to work with git, simply remove the .git/ folder in the root directory and go from there. So this test suite is now moving over to the Eclipse Foundation, and I'll stop maintaining it, and you Eclipse people take over :)
(In reply to comment #8) > Created an attachment (id=144524) [details] > Cleaned up distribution of KDE's OASIS Catalog test suite, under EPL v1.0. > > This ZIP contains a git repository with some minor changes, but most of all the > change to the Eclipse license. This was cleared by the two copyright holders(me > and Rob Lugt), and discussed with David Carver, Sharon Corbett, and Barb > Cochrane. > > If you don't want to work with git, simply remove the .git/ folder in the root > directory and go from there. > > So this test suite is now moving over to the Eclipse Foundation, and I'll stop > maintaining it, and you Eclipse people take over :) > Thanks Frans. We'll keep good care of it. Keep an eye on this bug for a bit as IP team may have a few more questions, but I think we should be good.
Created attachment 150091 [details] Cleaned up distribution of KDE's OASIS Catalog test suite, under EPL v1.0.(second submit) This second attachment incorporates feedback by Sharon Corbett, via email "RE: XML Catalogue Test Suite 1.0 Follow On Questions"(Tue, 13 Oct). Notably: * runTests.py is excluded * .git/ is excluded * Changelog has also been excluded
(In reply to comment #10) > Created an attachment (id=150091) [details] > Cleaned up distribution of KDE's OASIS Catalog test suite, under EPL > v1.0.(second submit) > > This second attachment incorporates feedback by Sharon Corbett, via email "RE: > XML Catalogue Test Suite 1.0 Follow On Questions"(Tue, 13 Oct). Notably: > > * runTests.py is excluded > * .git/ is excluded > * Changelog has also been excluded Thanks, Frans. I've updated the eclipse CQ with the attachment and turned it back over to IP. I think we are close.
We should be good to go with this since the corresponding IPzilla is resolved long ago. Should this go in a bundle for itself like the XQTS stuff did?
(In reply to comment #12) > We should be good to go with this since the corresponding IPzilla is resolved > long ago. > > Should this go in a bundle for itself like the XQTS stuff did? Yes, I would keep it in it's own bundle. This way it can be used by other's outside of eclipse as well.
Jesper I'm re-assigning this to you to shepard the rest of the way through the process.
(In reply to comment #14) > Jesper I'm re-assigning this to you to shepard the rest of the way through the > process. Jesper just a reminder that this is still out there, we have everything in order we just need to push it over the finish line.
