Project

Profile

Help

Does com.saxonica.Validate sometimes emit duplicated validation messages?

Added by Martin Honnen over 1 year ago

When I run Saxon 11.4 EE Java as follows:

java -cp 'C:\Program Files\Saxonica\SaxonEE11-4J\saxon-ee-11.4.jar' com.saxonica.Validate -xsd:https://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-30/schema-for-xslt30.xsd -s:https://github.com/martin-honnen/martin-honnen.github.io/raw/master/xslt/invalid-samples/processorTest-invalid.xsl

I get the output

Validation error on line 16 column 181 of processorTest-invalid.xsl:
  FORG0001: Attribute @at is not allowed on element <variable>. The name is in one of the
  disallowed namespaces for the wildcard.
  See http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cvc-complex-type clause 3.2.1
Validation error on line 16 column 181 of processorTest-invalid.xsl:
  FORG0001: Attribute @at is not allowed on element <variable>. The name is in one of the
  disallowed namespaces for the wildcard.
  See http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cvc-complex-type clause 3.2.1
Error on line 103 column 18 of processorTest-invalid.xsl:
  XQDY0027  Two validation errors were reported. First error: Attribute @at is not allowed
  on element <variable>. The name is in one of the disallowed namespaces for the wildcard.
Validation of file https://github.com/martin-honnen/martin-honnen.github.io/raw/master/xslt/invalid-samples/processorTest-invalid.xsl completed: errors found

Based on that text output it seems as if the error FORG0001 for attribute @at "on line 16 column 181 " is output twice. Is that intended here because two validation errors occur (which ones?) but result in the same error message or is the duplicated output a quirk/flaw in com.saxonica.Validate?


Replies (2)

RE: Does com.saxonica.Validate sometimes emit duplicated validation messages? - Added by Michael Kay over 1 year ago

Yes, duplicated validation messages are something of a perennial problem. Not something that the automated tests are designed to catch. We try to eliminate them on a case-by-case basis.

    (1-2/2)

    Please register to reply