[Chicago-talk] HTML::Tree progress

Sun Sep 19 08:06:12 CDT 2004

After I sent my message in this thread yesterday, I did even more research... and more commits! ;)  First of all I changed oldparse.t to use the html file instead of a here document.  Something we did in tree.t earlier in the day.  Now they are all using the same data.  Interestingly enough oldparse.t passes the 'nested-comment' test?  So...  I am now suspecting the 'new_from_*' calls as not performing some step when wrapping the lower level calls...?  Hopefully I'll find time today to dig deeper...

On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 12:49:18AM -0500, Leland Johnson wrote:
> Yes, that is the major question we had during our meeting.
> 
> shawn.c.carroll added t/tree.t in r40, which failed tests 7 and 13 out
> of the box (they are the exact same test, just one is read from a file
> and the other is read from a string). The _test_ case says that it
> should not find the word "comment" because all instances are in a
> comment, or _recursive_ comment. This test fails because currently the
> _module_ does not deal with recursive comments, so they are converted
> to escaped HTML. (This paragraph is all at revision 40!)
> 
> We need the author to decide on what the final solution to this should
> be, then change the tests appropriately. Jon has made an additional
> test for simple comments in t/tree.t. That test is run twice for
> new_from_content and new_from_file. Now, t/tree.t fails the exact same
> tests as before, but they are now tests #7 and #14.
> 
> So, as of now, someone needs to fake a final call on how nested
> comments should be handled.
> 
> 
> On a more general note, the test coverage is up (and mercilessly
> refactored) since our meeting today. You can see the two pages here on
> my website:
> Before:
> http://s89790145.onlinehome.us/random/phalanx_chicago/cover_dbr42/coverage.html
> and now....
> http://s89790145.onlinehome.us/random/phalanx_chicago/cover_dbr59/coverage.html
> 
> So the net coverage increased by... 3%!
> 
> Now, that not too impressive, but a lot of the tests were refactored,
> a test case found an (architecture) bug, and a module that previously
> had 0% test coverage has 100%! Also, a lot was learned about
> subversion and the annoyance of a commit setting the trunk on fire.
> This was done a few times during our session (oops) and it is still
> burning, so somebody make the contacts needed to put it out!
> 
> I need to go to bed right now, but I'll have detailed results on all
> that happened at the meeting up on the wiki in the afternoon tomorrow,
> once I get a plug for my laptop again, and go over the commit logs.
> 
> 
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:32:06 -0500, Jon Amundsen
> <jamundsen at jamundsen.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 08:57:52PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> > >
> > > So what happened with HTML::Tree today?  I've seen a lot of updates, but
> > > t/tree.t fails.
> > >
> > > xoxo,
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy Lester => andy at petdance.com => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Chicago-talk mailing list
> > > Chicago-talk at mail.pm.org
> > > http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago-talk
> > 
> > We think it may be an actual bug in HTML::Parse or somewhere.  It doesn't seem to handle nested html comments like:
> > 
> > <!-- outside comment
> > <!-- inside comment
> > -->
> > -->
> > 
> > I refactored the html test data this evening and split the 'comment' test into 2 tests.  One for simple comments <!-- simple --> and one for nested.  No one has tackled the actual code or standard yet.  It may be that nested comments aren't valid html, but may be supported in the spirit of 'be lenient in what you receive'?
> > 
> > Leland volunteered to update the kwiki... I suspect you'll see more info on our days activities by tomorrow.  I'll probably send something more to the list also...
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > Jon Amundsen
> > jamundsen at jamundsen.dyndns.org
> > 
> > A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
> > "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
> >                 -- Mahatma Gandhi
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chicago-talk mailing list
> > Chicago-talk at mail.pm.org
> > http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago-talk
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Leland Johnson
> http://protoplasmic.org
> _______________________________________________
> Chicago-talk mailing list
> Chicago-talk at mail.pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago-talk

-- 

Jon Amundsen
jamundsen at jamundsen.dyndns.org

A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
                -- Mahatma Gandhi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/chicago-talk/attachments/20040919/3d6b87e4/attachment.bin