GeezerVison is showing github.com — This should fix issue #262 by RinkeHoekstra · Pull Request #265 · jsonld-java/jsonld-java
Conversation
- Included new JSON-LD tests in json-ld.org directory (perhaps rename this to something more W3C specific, as these are the latest tests from W3C)
- Updated
core/src/test/java/com/github/jsonldjava/core/JsonLdProcessorTest.java to start from manifest.jsonld rather than all jsonld files in the test directory; then iterating of the the list of manifest files specified there.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
* Included new JSON-LD tests in json-ld.org directory (perhaps rename this to something more W3C specific, as these are the latest tests from W3C)
* Starting from `manifest.jsonld` rather than all jsonld files in the test directory; then iterating of the the list of manifest files specified there.
|
Hi @RinkeHoekstra, thanks for your pull request! Some thoughts:
- It looks like the email used in your local Git config is not known to GitHub, so your commit here is not connected to your account
- Your changes are conflicting with the current master branch due to changes in master after you branched off. You should merge the current master into your branch or rebase your branch on top of the current master, and resolve the conflicts (in toRdf-manifest.jsonld)
- If you mention the related issue in the initial pull request comment (as you did in the commit), a useful link to the pull request is created in the issue
- We should not keep commented-out code around, it's in the Git history so we can always check that if we need the old code
- I'm not sure if it's a good idea to include a copy of the test suites in our repo. Maybe we could go with the approach that jsonld.js takes, which is to expect local checked out repos for the tests (and as a second step, automate checking out these repos), see https://github.com/digitalbazaar/jsonld.js/#tests
- As many of these tests currently fail with our implementation, we need a way to specify which tests to skip, like the
skip entries in https://github.com/digitalbazaar/jsonld.js/blob/master/tests/test-common.js. Perhaps for this pull request, you could make running against the new suite an option, and we keep running the old suite as the default. As a next step we can then implement skipping specific tests, and then switch the default to the new suite.
@ansell: Any thoughts on this, in particular about the last two points?
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@fsteeg I haven't had a chance to review the code changes. Getting the testsuite up to what the rest of the JSON-LD community are using is a good thing.
I like tests in this repository, it gives consistent builds. Nothing worse than having to check out another repository and then rely on it being stable. Having a script to sync them when changes are made upstream would be ideal, but not necessary for this pull request.
I don't mind having broken upstream compliance tests on master while they are being worked through, but I haven't seen the degree to which they are failing due to implementation deficiencies here. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few are failing, given the lack of attention that Tristan and I have been able to give to this codebase over the past few years. If too many are broken I will do a release before merging, given the few minor changes since the last release.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@RinkeHoekstra As Fabian says, the git commit metadata is important to track who is contributing here. We have automated cleanup for code formatting, so don't worry about that too much, but removing commented out code that is being replaced is a good thing.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
There are too many failing tests with similar errors to pull this into master at this point. Many of them seem to have similar reasons which should be fairly easy to fix as part of this Pull Request, to isolate those that are genuinely failing due to an out of date implementation or a lack of implementation for new features.
JsonLd invalid term definition: 1.1 and java.lang.ClassCastException: java.util.ArrayList cannot be cast to java.lang.String are two errors that appear often in the results and probably should be investigated before merging this.
[ERROR] Tests run: 929, Failures: 204, Errors: 220, Skipped: 12
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
fsteeg
commented
Oct 29, 2019
•
edited
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Pushed some smaller changes to handle some 1.1 constructs.
Doesn't help much (+25 passing tests total), but moves many errors to failures:
[ERROR] Tests run: 929, Failures: 293, Errors: 106, Skipped: 12
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
dsemenovsky
commented
Nov 20, 2019
•
edited
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Hey @fsteeg @ansell @RinkeHoekstra I would like to use 1.1 in my Android project. Please, let me know how can I help to get this PR approved.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@dsemenovsky Thanks for offering help. If you need any specific 1.1 features you could let us know, so we can focus on implementing them first, and you could test the implementation.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
fsteeg
commented
Nov 29, 2019
•
edited
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
fsteeg
added a commit
to fsteeg/jsonld-java
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 6, 2019
fsteeg
commented
Dec 6, 2019
•
edited
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Added different 1.1 tweaks and fixes in 906cdef, current state:
[ERROR] Tests run: 930, Failures: 355, Errors: 14, Skipped: 12
I've also set up an option to run the old 1.0 suite in my fork (fsteeg@278dce3), which currently also has a lot of failures. In jsonld.js they support that option too (see bottom of https://github.com/digitalbazaar/jsonld.js/#tests), however these tests fail over there too, so I'm not sure if it makes sense to set that up here.
In any case I'd suggest we rename the test suite folder in this branch to json-ld-api-tests to avoid confusion with the old json-ld.org suite.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Replaced by / moved to #283 & #284, closing.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Assignees
No one assigned
Milestone
No milestone
Development
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
|