Re: [SCXML] Incorrect and invalid ecmascript condition in IR test 459

On 2015-12-28 21:06, David Junger wrote:
> Le 28 d=C3=A9c. 2015 =C3=A0 17:18, Ate Douma <[email protected]> a =C3=A9cri=
t :
>>
>> I've just noticed an error in Implementation Report test 459 (ecmascri=
pt).
>>
>> This test contains the incorrect (and invalid!) ecmascript condition:
>>
>> "Var4=3D=3D0 | Var3 !=3D 2".
>
> It=E2=80=99s not technically invalid, and it=E2=80=99s not functionally=
 broken either,
> although probably by accident.
>
> =E2=80=98|=E2=80=99 is a bitwise OR, has lower priority than comparison=
 operators, and, when
> its operands are booleans (which they are here), it coerces them to 0 o=
r 1
> and so the result is 0 or 1, which is coerced back to the expected bool=
ean.
>
> David
>
Agreed, I probably shouldn't have said "invalid" :).
And indeed its not that this test always will succeed, but at least it (a=
lways)
fails to validate that Var1 and/or Var5 shouldn't be 0 at the end.

What I wanted to say is that there are two different type of errors with =
the
current expression:

   "Var4=3D=3D0" should be "Var5=3D=3D0" (error)
and
   bitwise OR "|" should be logical OR "||" (invalid)

I suspect this test has been modified heavily in the past as the comments=

(including the description) don't add up to the applied logic either,
referring to either Var4 or var1 to be tested while I now think it is Var=
5 which=20
is intended to be tested (being not 0).

Anyhow, I think the current expression really is incorrect and also more
confusing as a negative test.
It would be much easier and strict when defined like:

   <transition cond=3D"Var5 =3D=3D 1 &amp;&amp; Var3 =3D=3D 2" target=3D"=
pass"/>
   <transition target=3D"fail"/>

Ate