GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

GeezerVison is showing github.com — Tests and setup for 1.1 development by fsteeg · Pull Request #283 · jsonld-java/jsonld-java

Conversation

fsteeg commented Apr 28, 2020

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

As announced in #277 (comment), this PR contains only the changes in the test setup for 1.1:

Run all original 1.0/master tests in test/resources/json-ld-1.0-tests
Additionally run the lson-ld-api tests in test/resources/json-ld-api-tests
Additionally run the lson-ld-framing tests in test/resources/json-ld-framing-tests

See README for updating, running, and report generation:

https://github.com/jsonld-java/jsonld-java/blob/1.1-tests/README.md#update-local-spec-tests

This is the report summary for 1.1 compliance w/o any 1.1 specific code (see 2318376):

tests	pass
Compaction	86/238 (36.1%)
Expansion	84/366 (23.0%)
Flattening	45/55 (81.8%)
Framing	26/89 (29.2%)
HTML	3/49 (6.1%)
Remote document	3/18 (16.7%)
Transform JSON-LD to RDF	152/442 (34.4%)
Transform RDF to JSON-LD	30/51 (58.8%)

I will open a second pull request with our current 1.1 implementation changes from #277.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

RinkeHoekstra and others added 21 commits

June 27, 2019 10:02


          This fixes issue #262:

24a56c3

* 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.


          Test with openjdk8 and openjdk11

c0e0b85


          Support jld:PositiveSyntaxTest

8b7fedc


          Set up option to run the 1.0 test suite

16f8916


          Improve test outputs

7783fc7


          Set up option to run the json-ld-framing test suite

aaaf6d2


          Set up tests for multiple test suites and 1.1 development

7043ae1

- Set up tests for json-ld-api, json-ld-framing, and json-ld-1.0
- Run only json-ld-1.0 suite in Maven build (by naming convention)
- Run all suites for development of 1.1 features (AllSuites.java)


          Add setup for skipping tests

40e3e8e

- Skip only failing tests to make sure we run 1.1 code paths in CI
- Use resolvable URLs in skip files, they can act like TODO lists
- Delete `*-skip` files to re-generate them during next test run

Now `mvn test` runs all tests that are not listed in the files.


          Update json-ld-api and json-ld-framing tests, document in README

5b82307


          Fix test setup to use correct base for 1.0 and 1.1 tests

620053a


          Tweak test IDs for creating reports

c4793a7

Run tests with `-Dreport.format=jsonld`, convert to ttl, then:
https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/blob/master/reports/README.md


          Update spec tests and report setup

For integration in https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/
convert api and framing jsonld reports to single ttl file and then:
https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/blob/master/reports/README.md


          Rerun tests without functional 1.1 commits from #277

cfc5d5e


          Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into 1.1-tests

53470d6


          Handle @version context entries

3a63d91


          Include new keywords when skipping createTermDefinition

5623b28


          Support @container array syntax

d953a4f


          Support JSON literals

e316b1c


          Some 1.1 tweaks

036d7db


          Minor additions

a22f97e

- be more verbose in some error messages
- add some more comments pointing to the specs
- add a blank node condition according to spec 16.4


          Some inline comments on areas that can use improvement for 1.1

b6ba9e8

Focusing on expansion and context/term processing

fsteeg requested a review from dr0i

April 28, 2020 08:50

fsteeg assigned dr0i

Apr 28, 2020

coveralls commented Apr 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Coverage increased (+1.1%) to 90.397% when pulling a1d62e1 on 1.1-tests into e94efdf on develop.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

This was referenced Apr 28, 2020

Current state of 1.1 development #284

Merged

This should fix issue #262 #265

Closed

Tests and setup for 1.1 development #277

Closed

dr0i reviewed

Apr 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

core/src/test/java/com/github/jsonldjava/specs/JsonLdApiTests.java

		@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
		package com.github.jsonldjava.specs;

dr0i Apr 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This class is almost identical to the JsonLd1Tests. Can the code be reused ?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

fsteeg Jul 3, 2020

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I took a look at this, but I think avoiding the redundancy here would lead to too much complexity. First, the actual code is already extracted in static methods of SuiteUtils. The redundant part is only the JUnit Parameters/BeforeClass/AfterClass setup. These are static methods, so simply extracting them to a superclass won't work. An option would be a custom JUnit Rule (see https://www.baeldung.com/junit-4-rules#defining-a-custom-junit-rule), but I'm not sure if/how that would work with Parameterized, and I think it might actually make the code less readable.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

dr0i reviewed

Apr 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

core/src/test/java/com/github/jsonldjava/specs/JsonLdFramingTests.java

		@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
		package com.github.jsonldjava.specs;

dr0i Apr 28, 2020

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same here.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

dr0i reviewed

Apr 28, 2020

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

core/src/test/resources/json-ld-api-tests/README.md

		@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
		# Introduction

dr0i Apr 28, 2020

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see, this is a copy of https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/blob/master/tests/README.md.
Will add a remark in a commit - I think it is helpful to know the source?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

fsteeg Jul 3, 2020

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is indeed helpful to know the source. However, the workflow for updating the tests (as documented in the README, 'Update local spec tests') involves copying json-ld-api/tests/* to json-ld-api-tests/, which replaces the README. Maybe we could add a separate README to src/test/resources, describing the origins of the spec tests?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions


          Add source of README into the README

6faa828

dr0i assigned fsteeg and unassigned dr0i

Apr 28, 2020

ansell commented May 3, 2020

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

Rather than pulling in partially implemented code to master, I will retarget this at a new develop branch, which can contain all of the 1.1 development without worrying about whether it is currently passing all tests. That way we can still use master for releases of bug fixes if necessary while the 1.1 development occurs.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

ansell changed the base branch from master to develop

May 3, 2020 02:53

elahrvivaz and others added 20 commits

July 8, 2020 11:12


          Fix jarcache guava loading

d310e59

* Don't minimize guava shading, causes NoClassDefFoundError


          Merge pull request #291 from elahrvivaz/guava_maximize

c867a0a

Fix jarcache guava loading


          Merge pull request #284 from jsonld-java/1.1

3c8039f

Current state of 1.1 development


          Follow alternate document location

2e1135d

Implements https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#alternate-document-location.

Resolves #289.


          Remove unused imports

a2e6f8a

Complements the last commit.


          Remove ignored test

2ef090b

The ignored test would test an expected behaviour of java.net.URL.HttpURLConnection,
i.e. not to automatically follow redirects when this involves a protocol switching
(e.g. from HTTP to HTTPS).

See #289.


          Reorganize imports

a2f3c9f

- remove unused imports
- sorted alphabetically


          Try-with on response in the submethod

776e77d

As proposed in #292 (comment)


          Avoid reading from closed stream

818b118


          Abort if to many alternate links are followed.

1d675d7

This avoids a possible endless loop.

See #292 (comment).


          Fix missing trim(); simplify value parsing

1229f73

See #292 (comment) and
#292 (comment).


          Fix testing if object not null

faddb48

It should be checked if an Entity has a contentType, not if an Entity has
content.

See #292 (comment) and
#292 (comment).


          Throw IOException instead of returning null

9100b13

- remove superfluous check (was always false)
- remove superfluous IOException
- remove logger as it is no more needed

See #292 (comment).


          Close InputStream within finally block

d5e2761

See #292 (comment).


          Merge branch '289-followLinkHeaderToContextFile' into master

9b05185

Signed-off-by: Peter Ansell <[email protected]>


          Bump dependencies

Signed-off-by: Peter Ansell <[email protected]>


          Release 0.13.1

71006f5

Signed-off-by: Peter Ansell <[email protected]>


          Bump to next development version

9d000fe

Signed-off-by: Peter Ansell <[email protected]>


          Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into 1.1-tests

44137ec


          Merge branch 'develop' into 1.1-tests

a1d62e1

fsteeg commented Sep 10, 2020

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

I've updated this with the current master, making the tests pass. There is some confusion here however, as this now contains what is described in #284 (current state of 1.1 implementation) plus what is described here (just the test setup). I shouldn't have opened #284 with a base branch that I didn't intend to be merged into, sorry. But this might be obsolete anyways (see #284 (comment)).

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

ansell mentioned this pull request

Oct 13, 2020

Maintainers #299

Closed

fsteeg mentioned this pull request

Feb 2, 2021

@reverse with framing does not work #286

Closed

dr0i mentioned this pull request

Mar 1, 2021

Added support for JSON-LD 1.1 @json @type #307

Closed

dr0i merged commit 6030f25 into develop

Mar 4, 2021

Reviewers

dr0i

dr0i left review comments

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

fsteeg

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

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.

7 participants

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.

You are visitor 01402520 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.

GeezerVison

Conversation

fsteeg commented Apr 28, 2020

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Apr 28, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dr0i Apr 28, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fsteeg Jul 3, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dr0i Apr 28, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dr0i Apr 28, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fsteeg Jul 3, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ansell commented May 3, 2020

Uh oh!

fsteeg commented Sep 10, 2020

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

coveralls commented Apr 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

dr0i Apr 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.