[cddlm] On CDL tests

[Jun Tatemura]

Hello,
I am sorry for this delayed reply.

Yes, you are right. The resolution must be:
<cdl:system>
          <app>
            <user cdl:ref="value" cdl:refroot="toplevel" />
          </app>
</cdl:system>
that is, the reference is not resolvable.
I have found other bugs in the valid test set. I am going to commit a 
corrected
version today and give comments on that in this ML

Thanks,
Jun

Guilherme Germoglio wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I think I've found a misinterpretation in cddlm-cdl-2005-02-0018 test.
>
> The cdl file:
>
>  <cdl:cdl>
>           <cdl:configuration>
>             <toplevel>
>               <value cdl:lazy="true"/>
>             </toplevel>
>           </cdl:configuration>
>           <cdl:system>
>             <app>
>               <user cdl:ref="value" cdl:refroot="toplevel"/>
>             </app>
>           </cdl:system>
>  </cdl:cdl>
>
> The resolution expected:
>
>  <cdl:system>
>           <app>
>             <user cdl:lazy="true"/>
>           </app>
>  </cdl:system>
>
> But the specification states in 7.5.2.2 <http://7.5.2.2> Example: ... 
> A value reference to this property will not be resolved before the 
> resolution of this @cdl:lazy attribute.
>
> So, as the user lazy element in the test was not yet resolved, the 
> reference to it should not be resolved. Is this correct?
>
> If so, the resolution expected must be:
>
> <cdl:system>
>           <app>
>             <user cdl:ref="value" cdl:refroot="toplevel" />
>           </app>
> </cdl:system>
>
> The cddlm-cdl-2005-02-invalid-0003.xml test also has a problem. It 
> states that there's an indirect recursive reference. The cdl file follows:
>
> <cdl:cdl>
>           <cdl:configuration>
>           </cdl:configuration>
>           <cdl:system>
>             <app>
>               <hostname cdl:ref="database"/>
>               <database cdl:ref="hostname" />
>             </app>
>           </cdl:system>
>  </cdl:cdl>
>
> But the resolution algorithm (p18-19) says the that no 
> cdl:ref/cdl:refroot is copied. So there's no recursive reference and 
> it is a valid cdl.
>
> Guilherme
>
>