Re: Spec column in SCXML IRP table

Ah, yes, you're right.  I forgot to edit the manifest.xml.  It should be 
fixed now.

- Jim
On 11/11/2014 6:37 AM, Stefan Radomski wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 13:58, Jim Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's because I moved the algorithm later in the Appendices. It is now Appendix D, while it was A before.  So all Appendices  before D have moved up a letter.
>>
> I am sure that’s true, nevertheless, this makes the “Spec” column in the IRP table incorrect for quite a few tests :)
>
> E.g. test436.txml is not testing a functional requirement from C.1 as indicated in the table and the manifest from the IRP page, but from B.1. It’s no big deal, the references still point to the correct section as the anchors are still correct, however, the section these anchors appear under are not correctly labeled.
>
> Regards
> Stefan
>
>> - Jim
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stefan Radomski [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 3:24 AM
>> To: [email protected] ([email protected])
>> Subject: Spec column in SCXML IRP table
>>
>> Hey there,
>>
>> Datamodels and IO Processors are shifted by one alphabet character in the "Spec" column on the IRP page. Datamodels are "B", not "C" and IO processors are "C", not "D".
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>