-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Issue with code Coverage Report in 3.0.3 #1917
Comments
Thanks for the clear description and ZIP-file. I see that the report from Test01 is wrong and will try to determine why. |
traceableUQName is sometimes an ancestor of the node that coverage-report.xsl expects to see (xspec#1917), whereas traceableClassName works more reliably. Therefore, include the class in the coverage data even if uqname is available.
Hi, Adrian. I have an idea for a fix, but it will take me some time to qualify and test it properly. If you're interested in trying it sooner with your real code, you can get the If you try it, please let me know how it works out! |
Hello, Finally, I've seen your Saxon issue https://saxonica.plan.io/issues/6295 about xsl:sequence - are we waiting for a relase later that 12.4 for this fix - I am getting xsl:sequence elements shown as missed. Adrian |
Thanks for trying my changes and reporting back!
Yes, please raise a separate issue for this. I logged an item with Saxonica, https://saxonica.plan.io/issues/6405, which could help me understand the situation you mentioned. XSpec uses a Java API related to the About Saxonica issue 6295: Yes, we're waiting for a fix in a release later than 12.4. |
Amanda, |
Adrian, thanks a lot for raising #1920 and for your observations about the presence of attributes and the tree models! I appreciate your jumping into the Saxonica discussion. |
I have a problem with the code coverage report. Depending on the order in which I run my test scenarios, the code coverage report differs, even though I'm executing exactly the same set of test scenarios in both cases.
I've created a simple test case using 2 xslt functions and have 2 xspec test files which call them in the opposite order. The coverage report from Test01 is wrong and the coverage report from Test02 is what I expect. (Files are in the attached zip).
One function has xsl:choose as the first element and the other has xsl:variable.
The difference in the coverage xml seems to be the traceableId="1" value:
uqname="Q{http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform}choose" - Test01 (calls the choose function first)
class="net.sf.saxon.expr.instruct.TraceExpression" - Test02 (calls the variable function first)
Adrian
CodeCoverageTest.zip
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: