On 26 March 2012 22:17, Aaron Rubin <[email protected]> wrote: > I've adjusted the plan quite a bit - it now gives more time to transfer > rules and checks for a few other problems that I thought might come up. How > does it look? > > Weeks 1-5, .dix files: > > Week 1: Redundant Entry Finder > Week 2: Testing Full Entries in Lemmas where Part of the Lemma is Specified > by the Pardef; Testing Misspelled Tags and Pardefs > Week 3: Testing Incompatible Tags; Testing Tag Missing on One Side of > Translation Equivalents (in bilingual dictionaries) > Week 4: Testing Missing Gender on Gendered Languages (in bilingual > dictionaries)
Running such a tool on the es-ca dictionary would report ~15000 false positives; on en-es, ~1200. It would be nice to be able to add something like <!-- no_gender_check --> to a dictionary, and have it exit. > Week 5: Bundling features together in one program; re-organizing code, and > writing documentation, to make sure that everything is as neat and > maintainable as possible. Combining tests from previous weeks into a single > testing program so that all features can be tested at once when the code is > modified in the future. > Weeks 6-12, transfer rules: > Week 6: Checking inappropriate uses of <equal>, <begins-with>, <ends-with>, > and <let> in transfer rules (equating a tag with a non-empty string literal, > etc.) Using let to assign an empty string to a tag is an appropriate use, be sure you take that into account. > Week 7: Checking for cases where the user asks for nonexistent tags with > lit-tag v="some_tag" (always an error) or for a string literal with lit > v="some_string" that is identical to a tag (suspicious and very likely an > error). The latter seems dubious. It seems a reasonable thing to do in <concat> at least. > Week 8: Checking for undefined tags after attr-item in attribute > definitions, probably due to spelling errors. Checking for calls to anything > other than a defined attribute, lem, lemh, lemq, whole, or tags after part= > in a clip. > Week 9: Checking for patterns that refer to non-existent categories, > probably due to spelling errors. Already caught by the validator, though a more descriptive error message might be helpful. > Checking for misspelled variables. > Week 10: Checking for an untagged chunk (ex., in the rule "HACE NUM NOM" in > apertium-en-es.en-es.t1x, forgetting to give the resulting chunk the tag > "adverb," which seems like a conceivable mistake to me). Checking for > incorrect number of arguments in calls to macro. Also already caught by the validator. > Week 11: Checking for missing <test> after <when> and for non-boolean > arguments to <test>, <and>, <not>, and <or> (unless the compiler already > checks for that sort of thing?). Again, also caught by the validator. -- <Sefam> Are any of the mentors around? <jimregan> yes, they're the ones trolling you ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
