Skip to content

Add more exhaustive syntax tests (#843) #844

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 5, 2024
Merged

Add more exhaustive syntax tests (#843) #844

merged 5 commits into from
Aug 5, 2024

Conversation

@catamorphism
Copy link
Collaborator

@catamorphism catamorphism commented Jul 30, 2024

Beginning to address #843 and the corresponding item under https://github.com/unicode-org/message-format-wg/wiki/Things-That-Need-Doing .

I tried to test each variation of each rule (up to but not including identifier.) I didn't try to test combinations of variations. For example, for this rule:

complex-message   = *(declaration [s]) complex-body [s]

the idea would be to add tests that exercise the following four (partial) derivations:

complex-message -> complex-body
complex-message -> complex-body s
complex-message -> declaration complex-body
complex-message -> declaration s complex-body

This isn't exhaustive by any means, but it was broad enough that I found one bug in the ICU4J parser (the ".input{$x}{{}} test case) and two bugs in the ICU4C parser (the \\\\ test case and the { #a} test case).

@catamorphism catamorphism mentioned this pull request Jul 30, 2024
Closed
@catamorphism
Copy link
Collaborator Author

catamorphism commented Jul 30, 2024 •
edited
Loading

The validation CI check is failing because I used the comment field, which I added to the version of the schema in the conformance repo -- I guess I'll go ahead and update that in the same PR. Actually, I'm not sure which repo should be the source of truth. Any opinions?

@eemeli
Copy link
Collaborator

eemeli commented Jul 30, 2024

Tests may already include a "description", why not use that?

message-format-wg/test/schemas/v0/tests.schema.json

Lines 135 to 142 in 4514e88

"test": {
"type": "object",
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"description": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Information about the test."
},

The spec tests in this repo need to match the schema that's also in this repo.

@aphillips aphillips added test-suite Issue pertains to tests LDML46 labels Jul 30, 2024
@catamorphism
Copy link
Collaborator Author

catamorphism commented Jul 30, 2024

Tests may already include a "description", why not use that?

Ah, didn't notice that. Fixed.

@eemeli eemeli added the fast-track Editorial change permitted to use fast-track merge rules label Jul 30, 2024
@catamorphism catamorphism mentioned this pull request Jul 31, 2024
Merged
@catamorphism catamorphism merged commit 8370709 into unicode-org:main Aug 5, 2024
@echeran echeran linked an issue Aug 5, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Create complete tests for syntax #843
Closed
@eemeli eemeli added this to the LDML 46 milestone Jul 23, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@eemeli eemeli eemeli approved these changes

@aphillips aphillips Awaiting requested review from aphillips

@echeran echeran Awaiting requested review from echeran

@mradbourne mradbourne Awaiting requested review from mradbourne

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

fast-track Editorial change permitted to use fast-track merge rules test-suite Issue pertains to tests

Projects

None yet

Milestone

LDML 46

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Create complete tests for syntax

5 participants

@catamorphism @eemeli @aphillips @echeran @mradbourne