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

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 0713 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 0713.

Report 0713 Actions

    Problem Report Number 0713
    Submitter's Classification Specification problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Permanent Interpretation (PIN)
    Problem Resolution ID PIN.X.0106
    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/delta 1027
    Specification Commands and Utilities Issue 4 Version 2
    Location in Spec See Problem Text
    Problem Summary PIN4C.00008 Should the SID be printed in the standard output.
    Problem Text
    The test in question verifies the following assertion:

    When the -s option is not specified, a report of each
    file's activities shall be printed to standard output
    in the following format:
    "%d inserted\n%d deleted\n%d unchanged\n",
    <number of lines inserted>, <number of lines deleted>,
    <number of lines unchanged>.

    This format is taken from XCU4 Issue 2, p. 260. However, the format
    cited in XCU4 differs from the format that has been used in historical
    implementations of the delta command. The historical format is

    "%s\n%d inserted\n%d deleted\n%d unchanged\n",
    <New SID>,<number of lines inserted>, <number of lines deleted>,
    <number of lines unchanged>.

    That is, the new SID is displayed on a line by itself before the line
    counts. We believe that this was an inadvertent change in the
    specification, and that implementations should be permitted to retain
    the historical behavior of delta. The presence of the SID is useful
    and is expected by some scripts. We believe that this difference should
    be considered a grey area in the specification.
    Test Output
    -----------------start of journal output------------------

    400|1 1027 1 14:08:18|IC Start
    200|1 1 14:08:18|TP Start
    520|1 1 1432 1 1|Assertion #1027 (C): format of standard output when -s option
    not specified
    520|1 1 1432 1 1|Files out.stdout and delta_exp_1 are not identical
    520|1 1 1432 1 2|out.stdout delta_exp_1 differ: char 1, line 1
    520|1 1 1432 1 3|1d0
    520|1 1 1432 1 4|< 1.2
    520|1 1 1432 1 5|Command failed: 'delta_cmpfiles out.stdout delta_exp_1'
    220|1 1 1 14:08:21|FAIL
    410|1 1027 1 14:08:21|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 after review.

    Historical practice is not normative. The standard states the
    requirements for output and implementations must conform to this.


    Review Type Expert Group Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution No Resolution Given
    Review Conclusion
    The Base WG have 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