• From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:46:02 +0100

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...> wrote:
>> OK so things like XMLUnit fit well with the Java ecosystem but test
>> cases have a primary and dual purpose.
>>
>> 1. Highlight where a bug exists by failing a test.
>> 2. Pass tests where bugs do not exist...... i.e NOT to flag up false
>> positives because they need to be investigated and that wastes time.
>
> Test cases are for a lot more than just those 2.
>
>> Tools that expose xpaths are not good at 2.
>>
>> There is a ready made fix for this problem - write your assertions
>> with a tool that doesn't force you to expose your xpaths - Schematron.
>> This last point has been pretty much universally accepted and widely
>> known in the QA community since the turn of the millenium.
>
> It sounds like you are suggesting it's bad to have xpaths in junit
> tests?  ...and to use Schematron instead?
>

Yes. Because changes to the structure of the xml will break the JUnit
test whereas Schematron assertions are resilient to that.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • Re: Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>

• References:
  • Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
  • Re: Testing XML don't use xUnit
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>