[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1726?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17468613#comment-17468613
]
Mukul Gandhi commented on XERCESJ-1726:
---------------------------------------
I've written my own XSD 1.1 validation example, that uses your XSD idioms (to
see, if Xerces has a fundamental bug as per your choice of XSD syntax).
Consider following XSD document,
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";>
<xs:element name="X">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base="xs:string">
<xs:attribute name="att1" type="xs:integer" use="optional"/>
<xs:assert test="matches(text(), '^abc$')"/>
<xs:assert test="matches(./text(), '^abc$')"/>
<xs:assert test="./text()[matches(., '^abc$')]"/>
<xs:assert test="if (./text()[matches(., '^abc$')]) then @att1
else not(@att1)"/>
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
With the above XSD document, following XML instance document is valid,
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<X att1="1">abc</X>
Whereas, following XML instance document is invalid (all <assert>s return false
result),
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<X att1="1">abcg</X>
I'm of the conclusion that, Xerces is very much compliant.
> Possible Bug: Xerces 2.12.1 for XML Validation with XSD 1.1 Schema under Java
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: XERCESJ-1726
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XERCESJ-1726
> Project: Xerces2-J
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Samples
> Affects Versions: 2.12.1
> Environment: Windows 7
> Java 1.8.0_261
> Xerces-J 2.12.1
> Reporter: J Morris
> Assignee: Mukul Gandhi
> Priority: Major
> Labels: test
> Attachments: TestSecondError.zip, TestSimplified.zip, testX.zip,
> test_cases_ mukul.zip
>
> Original Estimate: 72h
> Remaining Estimate: 72h
>
> I have recently been trying to validate the XML file *test1.xml* with a
> schema *test.xsd* containing *assert*/*assertion* constructs, using the
> sample program *jaxp.SourceValidator*.
> Unexpectedly, the result was several reported errors in what appeared to be
> syntactically correct and valid XML lines (*test1.xml*: 9 errors).
> After significant experimentation, it appeared that these errors were
> occurring at line numbers which the validation found troublesome. Inserting
> an extra line at one of the troublesome line numbers made the previously
> erroneous line (now *not* appearing at a troublesome line number) pass
> validation. On the other hand, the newly inserted line (occupying the
> troublesome line number) would fail validation.
> I tentatively interpreted this as meaning that *the validation errors were
> not real* and began to try to develop a test-case, as similar as possible to
> *test1.xml*, but which passed validation. The result was *test2.xml*, which
> was generated from *test1.xml* by inserting XML comment lines at each of the
> troublesome line numbers, thereby displacing the previously erroneous lines
> to non-trooublesome line numbers. Since XML comment lines do not require
> validation, this file passed validation for me (*test2.xml*: 0 errors).
> I then contacted Mukul Gandhi and he re-ran my validations *but came to a
> different result*. He saw errors in both XML files (*test1.xml*: 9 errors;
> *test2.xml*: 18 errors). Despite our joint efforts to achieve convergence
> between our respective validation runs, we have not so far succeeded.
> Mukul did point out a couple of things:
> 1) The way that I was using the "matches" function in the *assert*
> constructs. His experience suggested that this was unreliable. However, I was
> not certain whether this would have led to the type of behaviour that I was
> seeing (apparent troublesome line numbers).
> 2) He found that certain characters (probably the two accented French
> characters) in my XML files were not supported in the default XML encoding
> scheme, UTF-8. However, for me, no errors were reported for those by the
> validation program *jaxp.SourceValidator*.
> I would be very gratefull foe some help in getting to the bottom of this
> (both the original behaviour and the discrepancies with Mukul's validation
> runs).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: j-dev-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: j-dev-h...@xerces.apache.org
