Subject: Re: [xsl] ANN: 'Testing XSLT' training course PDF available From: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:55:55 +0000 |
On 17/12/2007, Tony Graham <Tony.Graham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14 2007 12:31:37 +0000, andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > ... > > You mention black box testing under the unit test heading... which > > doesn't quite fit. > > > > Personally I don't think you can unit test XSLT*, it's only really > > worthwhile to test the output for a given set of inputs. > > Which is the sense in which I used "black box". It's not "unit testing" then... surely? > If the specification for the transform includes: > > 'art' becomes 'article' containing 'front/article-meta'. > > then you could use one of the unit testing frameworks to test that part > of the specification without needing to look inside the stylesheet. You > could also use Schematron (Debbie Lapeyre was teaching Schematron in the > next timeslot) or other methods to do the same thing. Again, you can't "unit test" a transform without knowing anything about it's internals - call it what you like but its not unit testing. If your example requirement is to ensure that: <art/> becomes: <article> <front> <article-meta> then you could use schema aware XSLT and do: <xsl:template match="art"> <article xsl:type="article"> ...which provided article was defined correctly in the schema it would give you confidence that if <art/> occurred in the input that structure would alwats be produced. Couple that will overall result validation containing XSD 1.1 asserts and I think that's an ideal testing framework. -- Andrew Welch http://andrewjwelch.com Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] ANN: 'Testing XSLT' train, Tony Graham | Thread | Re: [xsl] ANN: 'Testing XSLT' train, Tony Graham |
Re: [xsl] Identity transformation f, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] Identity transformation f, Colin Adams |
Month |