[Mono-dev] [PATCH] Validation for <xsl:output> attributes.

[Gert Driesen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atsushi Eno [mailto:atsushi at ximian.com] 
> Sent: vrijdag 23 december 2005 18:54
> To: Gert Driesen
> Cc: mono-devel-list at ximian.com
> Subject: RE: [Mono-dev] [PATCH] Validation for <xsl:output> 
> attributes.
> 
> > Comments inline 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com 
> > > [mailto:mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com] On Behalf 
> > > Of Atsushi Eno
> > > Sent: dinsdag 20 december 2005 6:26
> > > To: Gert Driesen
> > > Cc: mono-devel-list at ximian.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] [PATCH] Validation for <xsl:output> 
> > > attributes.
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > > The attached patch implements validation for <xsl:output> 
> > > attributes, and
> > > > adds unit tests.
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > > I've also added some unit tests for XsltCompileException 
> > > and XslException.
> > > > Some test are marked NotWorking, due to bugs in Mono (for 
> > > which I'll report
> > > > bug reports later).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Some comments:
> > > 
> > > 	- You can try Mainsoft XSLT standalone tests. Go to
> > > 	  Test/System.Xml.Xsl/standalone and run "make run-test", then
> > > 	  you can find some regressions.
> > > 	- Your code that checks attributes is good.
> > > 	- "indent" in xsl:output is "yes" by default when the output
> > > 	  method is "html", unlike when it is "xml" ("no"). That's why
> > > 	  we have string value instead of boolean in XslOutput class.
> > 
> > I now use an enum for this internally, which allows us to 
> continue exposing
> > Intend as a bool.
> > 
> > > 	- unindent cases in switches, i.e.
> > > 
> > > 		switch (foo) {
> > > 		case bar:
> > > 			...
> > 
> > Done.
> > 
> > > 	- The reason why you marked [NotWorking] on
> > > 	  XsltExceptionTests.Constructor2() is because
> > > 
> > > 		xsltException = new XsltException ((string) null,cause);
> > > 
> > > 		Assert.AreEqual (string.Empty, xsltException.Message);
> > > 
> > > 	  "fails", right? Hmm, It's still okay to keep this test, but
> > > 	  I don't think it is kind of thing we should fix. Having empty
> > > 	  message for an exception does not make sense.
> > > 
> > > 	  I guess, most of the reason in NotWorking are like that. If
> > > 	  so, you don't have to file bugs for them. Just add some
> > > 	  comments in the sources.
> > 
> > I've fixes these "bugs", and all tests now pass.
> 
> Lemme say again, "it is not kind of thing we should fix". After your
> fix,
> no one can understand what is going on from the Message property.

If you actually specify a zero-length or null message, then this not really
that odd behaviour. No ?

Gert