Verify via tool - #92
Conversation
|
@pwin This has not been tested at all. It's just an outline of an approach. It needs to be tested, unit tests should be written, and documentation needs to be updated. Feel free to ping me for reviews, etc. |
bpelakh
left a comment
bpelakh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pwin Other than the small nits I mentioned, the only thing remaining is documentation. Do you want to take a swing at it, perhaps including your working Jena use case as an example? Then we can bump up the version and put this one to rest.
| required: | ||
| - tool | ||
| - source | ||
| #- shapes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pwin we should remove this rather than commenting it out.
| exc_type, exc_value, exc_traceback = sys.exc_info() | ||
| traceback.print_tb(exc_traceback, limit=30, file=sys.stdout) | ||
| print(exc_value, file=sys.stdout) | ||
| print(exc_type, file=sys.stdout) | ||
| sys.exit() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need to print the traceback (which should be for internal failures) - if the user provided a bad path for a tool, that should be reported as a regular issue, using logging.error(), we should not have print() statements in the code. Also, a sys.exit(1) should be used to indicate an error termination.
| errors = [validation_graph.subjects(RDF.type, sh.ValidationResult)] | ||
| assert len(errors) == 1 | ||
|
|
||
| @pytest.mark.skipif(sys.platform == 'win32', reason="No /bin/cp") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| @pytest.mark.skipif(sys.platform == 'win32', reason="No /bin/cp") | |
| @pytest.mark.skipif(sys.platform == 'win32', reason="No /bin/cat") |
…f the validator is given in YAML as the variable 'EUValidatorOutputFile'
…t the application was launched from
| rows.append(as_text) | ||
| row_format = " ".join(f"{{:{length}.{length}}}" for length in max_length) + "\n" | ||
| row_format = "||" + "| ".join(f"{{:{length}.{length}}}" for length in max_length) + "||\n" | ||
| rows.sort(key=lambda x: x[0]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pwin Could this sort be the reason your ORDER BY didn't work for the table?
|
Aha.... Perhaps.
I'll dig tomorrow
…On Mon, 29 Nov 2021, 22:01 Boris Pelakh, ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In onto_tool/onto_tool.py
<#92 (comment)>
:
> @@ -1181,7 +1183,7 @@ def format_value(v):
# Extend the width of each column to contain the longest value.
max_length = [max(a, b) for a, b in zip(max_length, [len(s) for s in as_text])]
rows.append(as_text)
- row_format = " ".join(f"{{:{length}.{length}}}" for length in max_length) + "\n"
+ row_format = "||" + "| ".join(f"{{:{length}.{length}}}" for length in max_length) + "||\n"
rows.sort(key=lambda x: x[0])
@pwin <https://github.com/pwin> Could this sort be the reason your ORDER
BY didn't work for the table?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#92 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIFYTELLAKVXNFLOYFFOS3UOPZ43ANCNFSM5IEMP66A>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
|
…- it now can return the validation report on stdout
2 participants
No description provided.