[qmtest] RFE: result annotations

[Stefan Seefeld]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 11:31, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 
>>hello,
>>
>>Working with the xml_result_stream, I notice that the 'TRACEBACK'
>>annotation (which is decorated with '<pre>' and '</pre>' is escaped
>>in the resulting xml output. Is that intended ?
> 
> 
> Yes.  If you do not quote special characters, then it is possible for
> the XML to be invalid -- even if you assume that the annotation is valid
> HTML.  (That is true because HTML does not have XML's strict
> requirements on matching beginning and ending tags.) 

understood.

>>What is the approach in general ? It seems lots of output text is
>>assumed to be html. But then, putting it inside an xml output stream
>>means some work is required. While escaping seems like a possibility,
>>I don't believe it is the best option (see 
>>http://norman.walsh.name/2003/09/16/escmarkup).
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't think there's any other approach other than quoting.
> 
> We want to preserve particular strings -- byte-for-byte.  I don't know
> of any other way to do that.

hmm, you could define your document type via xml schema, and then allow
inside <annotation> nodes any valid xhtml.

>>I'm post-processing the output with xslt to generate a 'test matrix',
>>and as it is now I can't recover the '<pre>' tag.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that's true.  The value of the text node contains the
> string "<pre>"; not the string "<pre>".  The externalized
> representation is the quoted form, but the value is the unquoted form.

well, yeah, the string contains "<pre>", but it's not part of the
markup. Yet I do want to treat it with xslt, and therefor it has to be
part of the markup, not the text node's content.


> The problem here is that the naming convention isn't standard across
> test classes -- for good reasons.

What naming convention are you referring to ? I thought a test database
is defined in terms of tests and suites (of tests), and 'foo.bar.baz' is
the (unique) way to refer to test 'baz' in suite 'bar' in suite 'foo'.

Regards,
		Stefan