Include primary instance root attributes, namespace declarations in submission XML #287
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #286.
I have verified this PR works in these browsers (latest versions):
What else has been done to verify that this works as intended?
Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?
It'd be better to have a more general solution for both attributes and namespace declarations.
Both would involve significant work on both parsing (to capture attributes and namespace prefixes/declarations throughout the primary instance subtree), as well as the primary instance state data model (as we don't have a concept of attributes, and presently ignore non-default-namespace element names).
I'd be remiss if I failed to mention that there would have been an even hacker way to deal with namespace declarations: abuse built-in DOM serialization (as it functionally does the same thing to derive namespaces as this change does more explicitly). I didn't do this because:
jsdom
/any other DOM-compat library would make that technique unreliableHow does this change affect users? Describe intentional changes to behavior and behavior that could have accidentally been affected by code changes. In other words, what are the regression risks?
It's possible that even the simplified solution has ignored some edge case, which would be most likely around namespaces. I think I was fairly thorough, but the parse-stage collection of namespaces in a temporary map would be the most likely suspect.
It's also possible some logical error might have introduced subtle fallibility. I'm hopeful that letting the type system guide the change avoided most if not all of that risk.
Do we need any specific form for testing your changes? If so, please attach one.
I think any form will do?
What's changed