AT&T regular expressions test harness

The AT&T regular expressions test tool testregex.c is the test harness developed by AT&T Research for testing the myriad of regex libraries out there.

The tool has been adapted for xmlfy and has been run to test xmlfy's regex functionality which is derived from the TRE regex library.

These tests are quite comprehensive and some failures are to be expected by most regex implementations including the TRE regex library. These known failures are duly noted within the xmlfy test framework.

Results are as follows:

$ make -f Makefile_tests
#
#---------------------------------------------------------
# TEST t_basic expect 0 errors
#---------------------------------------------------------
./testregex  < testdata_basic
TEST    testregex (AT&T Research) 2010-06-10
NOTE    regex
NOTE    unsupported: AUGMENTED,SHELL,CLASS_ESCAPE,COMMENT,DELIMITED,DISCIPLINE,ESCAPE,LEFT,LENIENT,MINIMAL,MULTIPLE,MULTIREF,MUSTDP,SHELL_PATH,SPAN,regnexec,regsubcomp,redecomp
NOTE    all standard compliant implementations should pass these : 2002-05-31
TEST    testregex, 540 tests, 0 errors
#
#---------------------------------------------------------
# TEST t_categorize expect 0 errors
#---------------------------------------------------------
./testregex  < testdata_categorize
TEST    testregex (AT&T Research) 2010-06-10
NOTE    regex
NOTE    unsupported: AUGMENTED,SHELL,CLASS_ESCAPE,COMMENT,DELIMITED,DISCIPLINE,ESCAPE,LEFT,LENIENT,MINIMAL,MULTIPLE,MULTIREF,MUSTDP,SHELL_PATH,SPAN,regnexec,regsubcomp,redecomp
NOTE    regex implementation categorization 2004-05-31
NOTE    POSITION=leftmost
NOTE    ASSOCIATIVITY=left
NOTE    SUBEXPRESSION=precedence
NOTE    REPEAT_LONGEST=last
NOTE    BUG=nomatch-match
NOTE    # BUG=nomatch-match
NOTE    BUG=repeat-artifact-nomatch-UNKNOWN
TEST    testregex, 20 tests, 0 errors
#
#---------------------------------------------------------
# TEST t_forcedassoc expect 0 errors
#---------------------------------------------------------
./testregex  < testdata_forcedassoc
TEST    testregex (AT&T Research) 2010-06-10
NOTE    regex
NOTE    unsupported: AUGMENTED,SHELL,CLASS_ESCAPE,COMMENT,DELIMITED,DISCIPLINE,ESCAPE,LEFT,LENIENT,MINIMAL,MULTIPLE,MULTIREF,MUSTDP,SHELL_PATH,SPAN,regnexec,regsubcomp,redecomp
NOTE    left-assoc:pass-all right-assoc:pass-all : 2002-04-29
TEST    testregex, 56 tests, 0 errors
#
#---------------------------------------------------------
# TEST t_leftassoc expect 0 errors
#---------------------------------------------------------
./testregex  < testdata_leftassoc
TEST    testregex (AT&T Research) 2010-06-10
NOTE    regex
NOTE    unsupported: AUGMENTED,SHELL,CLASS_ESCAPE,COMMENT,DELIMITED,DISCIPLINE,ESCAPE,LEFT,LENIENT,MINIMAL,MULTIPLE,MULTIREF,MUSTDP,SHELL_PATH,SPAN,regnexec,regsubcomp,redecomp
NOTE    left-assoc:pass-all right-assoc:pass-none : 2002-04-29
TEST    testregex, 24 tests, 0 errors
#
#---------------------------------------------------------
# TEST t_nullsubexpr expect 3 errors
#---------------------------------------------------------
./testregex  < testdata_nullsubexpr
TEST    testregex (AT&T Research) 2010-06-10
NOTE    regex
NOTE    unsupported: AUGMENTED,SHELL,CLASS_ESCAPE,COMMENT,DELIMITED,DISCIPLINE,ESCAPE,LEFT,LENIENT,MINIMAL,MULTIPLE,MULTIREF,MUSTDP,SHELL_PATH,SPAN,regnexec,regsubcomp,redecomp
NOTE    null subexpression matches : 2002-06-06
51: (a*?)*? versus aaa ERE failed: match was: (0,0)(0,0) expected: (0,0)
58: \(a*\)*\(x\)\(\1\) versus ax BRE regexec failed: expected: (0,2)(1,1)(1,2)(2,2)
61: \(a*\)*\(x\)\(\1\)\(x\) versus axxa BRE failed: match was: (1,3)(1,1)(1,2)(2,2)(2,3) expected: (0,3)(1,1)(1,2)(2,2)(2,3)
TEST    testregex, 120 tests, 3 errors
#
#---------------------------------------------------------
# TEST t_repetition expect 3 errors
#---------------------------------------------------------
./testregex  < testdata_repetition
TEST    testregex (AT&T Research) 2010-06-10
NOTE    regex
NOTE    unsupported: AUGMENTED,SHELL,CLASS_ESCAPE,COMMENT,DELIMITED,DISCIPLINE,ESCAPE,LEFT,LENIENT,MINIMAL,MULTIPLE,MULTIREF,MUSTDP,SHELL_PATH,SPAN,regnexec,regsubcomp,redecomp
NOTE    implicit vs. explicit repetitions : 2009-02-02
48: ((..)¦(.))* versus aaa ERE failed: match was: (0,3)(1,3)(1,3)(?,?) expected: (0,3)(2,3)(?,?)(2,3)
68: ((..)¦(.))* versus aaaaa ERE failed: match was: (0,5)(3,5)(3,5)(?,?) expected: (0,5)(4,5)(?,?)(4,5)
NOTE    additional repetition tests graciously provided by Chris Kuklewicz www.haskell.org 2009-02-02
92: X(.?){7,}Y versus X1234567Y ERE failed: match was: (0,9)(8,8) expected: (0,9)(7,8)
TEST    testregex, 163 tests, 3 errors
#
#---------------------------------------------------------
# TEST t_rightassoc expect 12 errors
#---------------------------------------------------------
./testregex  < testdata_rightassoc
TEST    testregex (AT&T Research) 2010-06-10
NOTE    regex
NOTE    unsupported: AUGMENTED,SHELL,CLASS_ESCAPE,COMMENT,DELIMITED,DISCIPLINE,ESCAPE,LEFT,LENIENT,MINIMAL,MULTIPLE,MULTIREF,MUSTDP,SHELL_PATH,SPAN,regnexec,regsubcomp,redecomp
NOTE    left-assoc:pass-none right-assoc:pass-all : 2002-04-29
3: (a¦ab)(c¦bcd)(d*) versus abcd ERE failed: match was: (0,4)(0,1)(1,4)(4,4) expected: (0,4)(0,2)(2,3)(3,4)
4: (a¦ab)(bcd¦c)(d*) versus abcd ERE failed: match was: (0,4)(0,1)(1,4)(4,4) expected: (0,4)(0,2)(2,3)(3,4)
5: (ab¦a)(c¦bcd)(d*) versus abcd ERE failed: match was: (0,4)(0,1)(1,4)(4,4) expected: (0,4)(0,2)(2,3)(3,4)
6: (ab¦a)(bcd¦c)(d*) versus abcd ERE failed: match was: (0,4)(0,1)(1,4)(4,4) expected: (0,4)(0,2)(2,3)(3,4)
8: (a*)(b¦abc)(c*) versus abc ERE failed: match was: (0,3)(0,0)(0,3)(3,3) expected: (0,3)(0,1)(1,2)(2,3)
9: (a*)(abc¦b)(c*) versus abc ERE failed: match was: (0,3)(0,0)(0,3)(3,3) expected: (0,3)(0,1)(1,2)(2,3)
10: (a*)(b¦abc)(c*) versus abc ERE failed: match was: (0,3)(0,0)(0,3)(3,3) expected: (0,3)(0,1)(1,2)(2,3)
11: (a*)(abc¦b)(c*) versus abc ERE failed: match was: (0,3)(0,0)(0,3)(3,3) expected: (0,3)(0,1)(1,2)(2,3)
13: (a¦ab)(c¦bcd)(d¦.*) versus abcd ERE failed: match was: (0,4)(0,1)(1,4)(4,4) expected: (0,4)(0,2)(2,3)(3,4)
14: (a¦ab)(bcd¦c)(d¦.*) versus abcd ERE failed: match was: (0,4)(0,1)(1,4)(4,4) expected: (0,4)(0,2)(2,3)(3,4)
15: (ab¦a)(c¦bcd)(d¦.*) versus abcd ERE failed: match was: (0,4)(0,1)(1,4)(4,4) expected: (0,4)(0,2)(2,3)(3,4)
16: (ab¦a)(bcd¦c)(d¦.*) versus abcd ERE failed: match was: (0,4)(0,1)(1,4)(4,4) expected: (0,4)(0,2)(2,3)(3,4)
TEST    testregex, 12 tests, 12 errors