Subject: Re: [xsl] ANN: 'Testing XSLT' training course PDF available From: "Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:20:06 +0530 |
On Dec 14, 2007 7:06 PM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Clearly functions are ideal for unit testing because unlike templates they > have no context dependencies. Thanks Mike for reminding about this. I had a feeling, that unit testing is better possible with XSLT 2.0 ... >But I think you can do it with templates too. > I often exploit the XSLT 2.0 feature that allows a stylesheet to be executed > starting at a named template; you can insert a named template that is there > solely for testing purposes, for example > > <xsl:template name="test-table-rendition"> > <xsl:apply-templates select="(//table)[1]"/> > </xsl:template> > > or if you prefer you can compare the output with expected results using > deep-equal(). I would ideally like - Have the original stylesheet (which is undergoing testing) *unmodified*. Write a unit testing stylesheet (which is like 1 unit test), which can test some aspect of the original stylesheet (like a function), or possibly test the whole stylesheet as a unit (and use deep-equal() function to compare the expected output with the received output - but this seems not possible without inserting a named template in the main stylesheet). Your named template approach, will modify the main stylesheet, which is unlike JUnit. Ofcouse, we can live with some limitations :) Please correct me if I am wrong ... -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] ANN: 'Testing XSLT' train, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] ANN: 'Testing XSLT' train, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] ANN: 'Testing XSLT' train, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] ANN: 'Testing XSLT' train, Andrew Welch |
Month |