Home • About Us • A-Z Index • Search * Contact Us • Register • Login • Press • Shop

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 0712 Details

Help Show help | Quick Search | Submit a Test Suite Support Request | Click here to view your privileges

This page provides all information on Problem Report 0712.

Report 0712 Actions

    Problem Report Number 0712
    Submitter's Classification Specification problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Permanent Interpretation (PIN)
    Problem Resolution ID PIN.X.0105
    Raised 1970-01-01 08:00
    Updated 2003-03-13 08:00
    Published 1995-11-27 08:00
    Product Standard Commands and Utilities V2 (UNIX 95)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSC version 4.1.4
    Test Identification XOPEN.cmd/prs 1037
    Specification Commands and Utilities Issue 4 Version 2
    Location in Spec See Problem Text
    Problem Summary PIN4C.00009 How many newlines should appear in the expected output.
    Problem Text
    The test in question verifies the following assertion:

    When the -d option is not specified, then the default dataspec
    shall be

    ':PN::\n\n'

    and the following dataspec shall be used for each selected delta

    ':Dt:\t:DL:\nMRs:\n:MR:COMMENTS:\n:C:\n'

    This format is taken from XCU4 Version 2, p. 589. However, the format
    cited in XCU4 (or at least, its interpretation in VSC4) differs from
    the format that has been used in historical implementations of the prs
    command. The difference is simply the presence of an extra newline in
    the VSC4 expected output; this extra newline character is the sole
    difference between the test suite expected output and our system's
    output.

    We think it is, at best, unclear whether the test suite
    expected output accurately represents the requirements of XCU4. The
    expected output has three consecutive newline characters; where do they
    come from? One comes from the newline in the format, and one
    presumably comes from the fact that the :C: data specification has a
    type M format. The only possible source for the third is the
    assumption that the comment printed by the :C: data specification
    contains a newline. We interpret the sentence:

    "The format of a data keyword value is either simple (S), in
    which keyword substitution is direct, or multi-line (M), in
    which keyword substitution is followed by a newline."

    on XCU4 Version 2 page 589's second paragraph of the Data Keywords
    portion of the STDOUT section to mean that the multi-line fields
    contain a terminating <newline> character and that the substitution of
    that field contains the terminating <newline> character; not that
    subsitutions of multi-line fields always include two trailing <newline>
    characters. We don't believe that the working group preparing XCU4
    intended to change the prs output format. This is unclear at best, and
    it seems to us that this is clearly a grey area in the specification.
    Test Output
    -----------------start of journal output------------------

    400|1 1037 1 12:18:19|IC Start
    200|1 1 12:18:19|TP Start
    520|1 1 12008 1 1|Assertion #1037 (C): default data specification when -d not
    specified
    520|1 1 12008 1 1|can't compare files prs_out_3 and prs_out_4
    520|1 1 12008 1 2|cmp: EOF on prs_out_3
    520|1 1 12008 1 3|Command failed: 'prs_cmpfiles prs_out_3 prs_out_4'
    220|1 1 1 12:18:21|FAIL
    410|1 1037 1 12:18:22|IC End

    ------------------end of journal output-------------------

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation No Resolution Given
    Review Response
    We recommend this request be refused.

    The first argument stating that the spec does not match
    historical practice is no foundation for approval. Historical
    practice is not normative.

    As to the second argument, We believe the test is correct. The
    test does not attempt to determine whether the data keywords are
    defined a particular way.

    It verifies whether the default output format matches the one
    specified in the standard. Thus, it compares the output of

    prs s.file
    with
    prs -d ":PN::\n\n:Dt:\t:DL:\nMRs:\n:MR:COMMENTS:\n:C:\n" s.file

    Regardless of how :C: is defined, if the output does not match,
    then the default format does not match the format specified by
    the standard.

    Review Type Expert Group Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution No Resolution Given
    Review Conclusion
    The Base WG agreed that the specification is wrong. It was not intended
    to invalidate historical usage. It will be fixed in the next release.
    Given this, the request should be granted.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Permanent Interpretation (PIN)
    Review Conclusion
    A Permanent Interpretation is granted.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority