Looks good to me but would love some opinion(s)
Signed-off-by: David Kahurani k.kahurani@gmail.com
From: David Kahurani k.kahurani@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: David Kahurani k.kahurani@gmail.com --- dlls/xmllite/tests/writer.c | 12 ++++++------ dlls/xmllite/writer.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/dlls/xmllite/tests/writer.c b/dlls/xmllite/tests/writer.c index 572b3a9fd67..8b610a68875 100644 --- a/dlls/xmllite/tests/writer.c +++ b/dlls/xmllite/tests/writer.c @@ -1628,11 +1628,11 @@ static void test_WriteAttributeString(void) { L"xml", L"a", L"", L"value", "<e xml:a="value" />", "<e xml:a="value"" },
/* Autogenerated prefix names. */ - { NULL, L"a", L"defuri", NULL, "<e p1:a="" xmlns:p1="defuri" />", "<e p1:a=""", S_OK, 1, 1, 1 }, - { NULL, L"a", L"defuri", L"b", "<e p1:a="b" xmlns:p1="defuri" />", "<e p1:a="b"", S_OK, 1, 1, 1 }, - { L"", L"a", L"defuri", NULL, "<e p1:a="" xmlns:p1="defuri" />", "<e p1:a=""", S_OK, 1, 1, 1 }, - { NULL, L"a", L"defuri", L"", "<e p1:a="" xmlns:p1="defuri" />", "<e p1:a=""", S_OK, 1, 1, 1 }, - { L"", L"a", L"defuri", L"b", "<e p1:a="b" xmlns:p1="defuri" />", "<e p1:a="b"", S_OK, 1, 1, 1 }, + { NULL, L"a", L"defuri", NULL, "<e p1:a="" xmlns:p1="defuri" />", "<e p1:a=""" }, + { NULL, L"a", L"defuri", L"b", "<e p1:a="b" xmlns:p1="defuri" />", "<e p1:a="b"" }, + { L"", L"a", L"defuri", NULL, "<e p1:a="" xmlns:p1="defuri" />", "<e p1:a=""" }, + { NULL, L"a", L"defuri", L"", "<e p1:a="" xmlns:p1="defuri" />", "<e p1:a=""" }, + { L"", L"a", L"defuri", L"b", "<e p1:a="b" xmlns:p1="defuri" />", "<e p1:a="b"" },
/* Failing cases. */ { NULL, NULL, L"http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/", L"defuri", "<e />", "<e", E_INVALIDARG }, @@ -1647,7 +1647,7 @@ static void test_WriteAttributeString(void) { L"xml", NULL, NULL, L"value", "<e />", "<e", E_INVALIDARG }, { L"xmlns", L"a", L"defuri", NULL, "<e />", "<e", WR_E_XMLNSPREFIXDECLARATION }, { L"xmlns", L"a", L"b", L"uri", "<e />", "<e", WR_E_XMLNSPREFIXDECLARATION }, - { NULL, L"xmlns", L"uri", NULL, "<e />", "<e", WR_E_XMLNSPREFIXDECLARATION, 0, 0, 1 }, + { NULL, L"xmlns", L"uri", NULL, "<e />", "<e", WR_E_XMLNSPREFIXDECLARATION }, { L"xmlns", NULL, L"uri", NULL, "<e />", "<e", WR_E_XMLNSPREFIXDECLARATION, 0, 0, 1 }, { L"pre:fix", L"local", L"uri", L"b", "<e />", "<e", WC_E_NAMECHARACTER }, { L"pre:fix", NULL, L"uri", L"b", "<e />", "<e", E_INVALIDARG }, diff --git a/dlls/xmllite/writer.c b/dlls/xmllite/writer.c index 128d666e82c..0ad3176564e 100644 --- a/dlls/xmllite/writer.c +++ b/dlls/xmllite/writer.c @@ -1003,8 +1003,36 @@ static HRESULT WINAPI xmlwriter_WriteAttributeString(IXmlWriter *iface, LPCWSTR { if (is_empty_string(prefix) && !is_empty_string(uri)) { - FIXME("Prefix autogeneration is not implemented.\n"); - return E_NOTIMPL; + struct element *element; + WCHAR buf[16]; + int count = 0; + + if (is_xmlns_local) + return WR_E_XMLNSPREFIXDECLARATION; + + if (writer->indent) + { + count = writer->indent_level; + } + else + { + LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY(element, &writer->elements, struct element, entry) + { + count += 1; + } + } + + count = swprintf(buf, ARRAY_SIZE(buf), L"p%d", count); + + if ((ns = writer_find_ns(writer, buf, uri))) + write_output_attribute(writer, ns->prefix, ns->prefix_len, local, local_len, value); + else + { + ns = writer_push_ns(writer, buf, count, uri); + write_output_attribute(writer, buf, count, local, local_len, value); + } + + return S_OK; } if (!is_empty_string(uri)) ns = writer_push_ns(writer, prefix, prefix_len, uri);
I'd expect this should consider already defined namespaces. For example, if you had defined namespace with "p1" prefix manually, autogenerating one in the same element should not reuse the name.
Also generated names should not depend on current element depth, or indentation. That seems wrong.
On Thu Mar 9 11:54:07 2023 +0000, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Also generated names should not depend on current element depth, or indentation. That seems wrong.
I'm curious about this because HTML(which I understand is a completely different markup language) seems to use this concept with the header tag. To nest a header under another header, you increment the suffix.
This doesn't seem outright wrong or far-fetched to me. Also, I thought my testing was biased so I tested again with the same observation.
Based on this concept, the problem with you have described above will not occur unless someone manually places a prefix without considering how nested the attribute is.
On Thu Mar 9 11:54:07 2023 +0000, David Kahurani wrote:
I'm curious about this because HTML(which I understand is a completely different markup language) seems to use this concept with the header tag. To nest a header under another header, you increment the suffix. This doesn't seem outright wrong or far-fetched to me. Also, I thought my testing was biased so I tested again with the same observation. Based on this concept, the problem with you have described above will not occur unless someone manually places a prefix without considering how nested the attribute is.
We'll need some tests for various cases, if we don't have them covered already.
On Thu Mar 9 19:41:24 2023 +0000, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
We'll need some tests for various cases, if we don't have them covered already.
Hmmm.... I think I have noticed some issues with this approach.
Closing this for now.
This merge request was closed by David Kahurani.
-
David Kahurani -
David Kahurani (＠kahurani)
-
Nikolay Sivov (＠nsivov)