-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
Expansion Algorithm, possible imprecision step 13.4.6.2 #479
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
The syntax specification doesn't make it clear if the node containing the node with Interestingly, my implementation does pass Expansion could pass The Syntax document should be updated to clarify that there is no such relationship. |
To be fair, the syntax document states:
but granted, this is a bit technical, and should be explained more clearly and sooner in the section. |
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
View the transcriptRob Sanderson: #479Gregg Kellogg: It passes active property, while it shouldn’t. A node object contains an incl block, and has a rel to another block, the prop relationship should only hold to …. Passing null should be fine here. Pierre-Antoine Champin: Does passing this active property have some impact on scoped contexts? Gregg Kellogg: yes, by passing the active property, it is used in an unexpanded sense to find relationships in unscoped contexts, and also for informing the relationship. In a streaming impl, it could be used for creating that triple. I discovered that in my streaming impl. If you strictly follow the algorithm, it doesn’t create the issue, as can be seen by the implementations that pass the tests. It is however more correct to not pass an a Ruben Taelman: ctive property. Pierre-Antoine Champin: I was afraid that this would cause an unintended ripple effect. Gregg Kellogg: Those things should be unrelated. … I tried it in my implementation, putting null did not break anything. … But it was required in my streaming implementation. Proposed resolution: Clarify that in 13.4.6.2 for @included an implementation should pass null to avoid creating a reference, per api #179 (Rob Sanderson) Gregg Kellogg: +1 Rob Sanderson: +1 Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 Ivan Herman: +1 Ruben Taelman: +1 Benjamin Young: +1 Resolution #5: Clarify that in 13.4.6.2 for @included an implementation should pass null to avoid creating a reference, per api #479 |
…tive property, as included blocks do not define a relationship to a referencing node. Fixes #479.
@timothee-haudebourg This is fixed in #481. Please let us know if that satisfies your concern. |
Yes, it is fine for me, thanks. Should I close the issue, or do I let you? |
It will close automatically when the PR is merged, thanks! |
Well I may have spoken too soon. Just to be sure, I tried to pass |
Yes, so passing
So the value is dropped before being detected step 13.4.6.3. No error is raised and the test fails. |
…tive property, as included blocks do not define a relationship to a referencing node. Fixes #479.
While expanding
@included
step 13.4.6.2 it is saidI believe the implementation is supposed to pass
@included
as active property instead of passing the current value. Otherwise, free floating literals inside the included block are automatically dropped, which makes the testexpand/in07
to fail.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: