mbeckerle commented on code in PR #987:
URL: https://github.com/apache/daffodil/pull/987#discussion_r1911262894
##########
daffodil-test/src/test/scala/org/apache/daffodil/section07/discriminators/TestDiscriminators.scala:
##########
@@ -79,7 +79,11 @@ class TestDiscriminators {
@Test def test_discrimExpression_03() = {
runner.runOneTest("discrimExpression_03") }
// DAFFODIL-1971
- // @Test def test_discrimExpression_04() = {
runner.runOneTest("discrimExpression_04") }
+ @Test def test_discrimExpression_04() = {
runner.runOneTest("discrimExpression_04") }
+ @Test def test_discrimExpression_05() = {
runner.runOneTest("discrimExpression_05") }
+ @Test def test_discrimExpression_06() = {
runner.runOneTest("discrimExpression_06") }
+ @Test def test_discrimExpression_07() = {
runner.runOneTest("discrimExpression_07") }
+ @Test def test_discrimExpression_08() = {
runner.runOneTest("discrimExpression_08") }
Review Comment:
If this is for the 3.10.0 release, we have to be prepared to back it out
should it lead to any significant regressions.
Changing order of assertion evaluation, and discriminator evaluation
(because a failing discriminator is equivalent to a failing assertion) can
result in different diagnostics coming out, so tests may regress because
they're expecting one error text, but are given another. But negative tests
failing due to one diagnostic vs. another is a sort of lower-threat regression
vs. positive tests that break.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
