Validate MiniLcm types #1344
Validate MiniLcm types #1344
Conversation
Contains validators for: - Entry - Sense - Example Sentence - Part of Speech - Semantic Domain
Entry validation now includes "lexeme must not be empty", so we add a non-empty lexeme to the existing entry validation tests.
These tests are quite similar to each other; a test helper method is probably needed here.
Refactored citation form tests to be more generic so they can be resued for other similar fields.
|
My thoughts on SemDom.xml and GOLDEtic.xml - we load these XML files as resources into the app (TODO: determine which DLL the resources should live in) and create a singleton service (or just a static class) that parses those XML files at system startup and provides an IDictionary interface for looking up POS / semdom data. (Or a hash set if all we need is to validate GUIDs). Then validation code can say "Is this a predefined / canonical item?" And if it's supposed to be canonical, ensure the GUID is correct. And optionally, verify that the name and description of the canonical items hasn't been modified. |
|
GUIDs are all that needs to be used to identify if a POS or SemDom is predefined. Unless you want to support versioning, which you probably don't. |
These tests run a Send/Receive as part of the test and are too slow to be considered unit tests.
Test that circular references are detected
rmunn
force-pushed
the
feat/validate-minilcm-types
branch
from
9b3d43e to
3bcd237
Compare
|
Commit 3bcd237, which actually turns on validation, makes lots of unit tests fail, because their test data is now considered invalid. I'll check through and see if my validation rules are too strict or if test data needs to be updated. I expect it to be a little of both. |
As long as senses only have a PartOfSpeechId in them, it's hard to check that property statelessly because we need to look up the PartOfSpeech in order to determine whether it's predefined (and thus whether its GUID needs to match one of the canonical GUIDs). For now, we'll skip checking part of speech GUIDs until senses have an actual PartOfSpeech reference.
Now, instead of semantic domains always being considered predefined when they come from fwdata, we can now look up their GUIDs in the canonical list and set Predefined correctly. This also makes two failing tests pass.
The Sena3SyncTests are failing because some parts of speech are being created with non-canonical GUIDs. Let's comment this out for now to make the tests pass, then uncomment it once we've investigated where the non-canonical PoS GUIDs are coming from.
|
Many tests are now failing with the error "Fieldname 'HumanNoOpinionNumber' does not exist." I don't get those failures when running tests locally, and I have no idea where that "HumanNoOpinionNumber" name is coming from. @hahn-kev - Any ideas on this one? |
A Sentence property that has no content at all should be allowed. (Still should not have any empty writing systems in a MultiString, of course).
backend/FwLite/MiniLcm/Validators/CanonicalGuidsPartOfSpeech.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
backend/FwLite/MiniLcm.Tests/Validators/ExampleSentenceValidatorTests.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
@hahn-kev wrote:
Addressed most review comments in commit c3f0908. The GUID constructor that doesn't parse strings is one I'll tackle tomorrow morning. Everything else is either done or waiting until later (such as renaming PartOfSpeechIdValidator, which I'm waiting on because I think I'll end up removing it) except for #1344 (review). There, I need a bit of help because I think I might be misunderstanding what the properties of ComplexFormComponent mean. (Either that, or I'm misunderstanding what you mean in that comment and I need you to expand on it a little).
Yeah, that might have been a one-off caused by something entirely different. Commit 922f0a0, which only changed the validation rule for example sentences, also made that error go away. So I'll chalk it up to weirdness and ignore it unless it comes back. |
The Components property on a complex form can contain empty GUIDs for the complex form entry ID, because we can infer that (it's the entry we're looking at right now). But it cannot contain an empty GUID for the component entry ID, because that's meaningless: which component is being referenced is the whole point of the Components property.
|
@hahn-kev - Okay, I think complex forms are sorted out now; I added a couple of comments to the validation to hopefully avoid this confusion in the future. This PR should be ready now. |
Fixes #1275.
Fixes #1276.
Fixes #1277.
Fixes #1278.
Fixes #1279.
Fixes #1280.
Work completed: