Add test cases for all built-in functions in parse.test.json

[lateapexearlyspeed]

I am implementing JsonQuery in another tech world, the compiler and query engine parts can be covered by compile.test.json well and this file contains all standard functions. But seems there are not all functions in parse.test.json. Can this file also contain test cases of all available functions ? Thanks!

[josdejong]

Nice! can you tell more about your implementation?

My idea about the different test suite files is:

• compile.test.json tests whether a JSON Query input is correctly executed, and must contain tests for all functions
• parse.test.json and stringify.test.json only test the conversion between the text format and the JSON format. So, they only test all text syntax and not individual functions or operators. So it contains tests for the syntax of: function, operator, pipe, object, array, property, string, number, boolean, null.

If we would add tests for all functions in parse.test.json we would get a lot of duplicate tests I think.

Does that distinction make sense?

[lateapexearlyspeed]

can you tell more about your implementation?

I am implementing .net implementation of this JsonQuery. Currently the basic compiler and query engine have completed and passed compiler.test.json. Basic parser is completed also and at least it can work for those 5 demo examples but I believe it should have more consideration later.

If we would add tests for all functions in parse.test.json we would get a lot of duplicate tests

I understand parser.test.json was for syntax but I hope it (or another file) can do more. As some of cases in it indicated, invalid function name (foo) was verified to be thrown, which implied other valid function names should not throw, but this is not verified, so I hope it is necessary to cover all valid function names.

[josdejong]

Thanks for your explanation, and sorry for the late reply.

As some of cases in it indicated, invalid function name (foo) was verified to be thrown, which implied other valid function names should not throw, but this is not verified, so I hope it is necessary to cover all valid function names.

Good point. It makes sense to add a test that verifies a list with all valid function names. What I meant is that we should not test all the behavior of all functions in parser.test.json, that should go in compiler.test.json. I'll add those tests ok?

[lateapexearlyspeed]

I think it is ok, thanks.

[josdejong]

@lateapexearlyspeed I've worked out these unit tests in #18, but this got me thinking.

Right now the parser throws an error in case of an unknown function like foo(42), and that probably triggerd your question on testing the full list of known functions. But probably the parser should not throw an error in case of an unknown function, and leave it to compile to actually throw an error when evaluating the function. The parser should just parse any function based on the syntax name(arg1, arg2, ...). I've worked that out in #19, and I think that is the best way ahead here. What do you think?

[lateapexearlyspeed]

Got it, no problem @josdejong .

[josdejong]

Thanks for thinking along! I've merged #19 now.

[github-actions]

🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 5.0.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀