[Java SDO CTS] adopting some tests from the optional bucket

[kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>]

Having looked at XSDChoiceTest I think it's fine for moving to the adopted
suite.  Any comments?
Also I've been looking at Andy's patch for TUSCANY-1224, and the fixes seem
fine.  As Andy mentions in the JIRA, Tuscany fails a couple of test as it
stands because it maps xsd's base64Binary to Tuscany SDO's Base64Bytes.
This type was introduced in Tuscany-933,  and IIRC it was necessary due to a
spec grey area.  I'm just looking back at that now to try to understand
again the thought processes that went into that fix.  If the test failure is
due to a spec grey area then I would say that we shouldn't adopt those
failing tests right now.

Regards, Kelvin.

Re: [Java SDO CTS] adopting some tests from the optional bucket

[kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>]

A little digging shows that the base64binary to Base64Bytes mapping issue
exists due to this spec issue http://www.xcalia.com/support/browse/SDO-128
So I propose to move the XSDComplexTests into the adopted suite as per the
patch for 1224,  but to comment out any assertions with regards to the
mapping of base64binary.  How does that sound?

Kelvin.

On 24/04/07, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Having looked at XSDChoiceTest I think it's fine for moving to the adopted
> suite.  Any comments?
> Also I've been looking at Andy's patch for TUSCANY-1224, and the fixes
> seem fine.  As Andy mentions in the JIRA, Tuscany fails a couple of test as
> it stands because it maps xsd's base64Binary to Tuscany SDO's Base64Bytes.
> This type was introduced in Tuscany-933,  and IIRC it was necessary due to a
> spec grey area.  I'm just looking back at that now to try to understand
> again the thought processes that went into that fix.  If the test failure is
> due to a spec grey area then I would say that we shouldn't adopt those
> failing tests right now.
>
> Regards, Kelvin.
>