1.1/bad-objects/E001_invalid_version_format

[je4]

Hi,

While implementing OCFL checker functionality, the error produced by "1.1/bad-objects/E001_invalid_version_format" is E104 not E001 as suggested in the folder name.
Should the object folder be renamed to "1.1/bad-objects/E104_invalid_version_format"?

best, Jürgen

[zimeon]

To me, the extra directory should trigger E001.My validator reports:

> ./ocfl-validate.py fixtures/1.1/bad-objects/E001_invalid_version_format
[E001b] OCFL Object root contains unexpected directory: 1 (see https://ocfl.io/1.0/spec/#E001)
[E009] OCFL Object root inventory versions block does not contain v1 or a zero padded equivalent (see https://ocfl.io/1.0/spec/#E009)
[E042a] OCFL Object root inventory manifest includes invalid content path 1/content/my_content/dracula.txt (see https://ocfl.io/1.0/spec/#E042)
[E042a] OCFL Object root inventory manifest includes invalid content path 1/content/my_content/poe.txt (see https://ocfl.io/1.0/spec/#E042)
INFO:ocfl.object:OCFL v1.1 Object at fixtures/1.1/bad-objects/E001_invalid_version_format is INVALID

Having said that, if directory 1 is interpreted as a version directory then E104 is appropriate. This seems to be a case where the validation approach will determine the precise error.

[srerickson]

For what it's worth, I've gone down the road of being overly pedantic about the fixture/error-code correspondence and I feel like my validation code suffered as a consequence. This message from the README is worth taking to heart:

Different validation strategies may find errors in different orders and possibly short-circuit other checks, thus not reporting the indicated error. Validators are expected to reject as invalid all fixture objects in bad-objects.

My validator gives E001, E008, and a currently unassigned error (that should be E104):

0 info  | 15:37:12.533113 | object includes invalid files or directories: 1 logger=../../testdata/object-fixtures/1.1/bad-objects/E001_invalid_version_format type=fatal OCFL=E001
0 info  | 15:37:12.533150 | no versions found              logger=../../testdata/object-fixtures/1.1/bad-objects/E001_invalid_version_format type=fatal OCFL=E008
0 info  | 15:37:12.533444 | error in inventory head field: 1: invalid version logger=../../testdata/object-fixtures/1.1/bad-objects/E001_invalid_version_format/inventory.json type=fatal
0 error | 15:37:12.533484 | path is not a valid OCFL object logger=../../testdata/object-fixtures/1.1/bad-objects/E001_invalid_version_format error="error in inventory head field: 1: invalid version"

[je4]

The main reason I raised this issue was, that I feel that constructing an example for E104 would look exactly like the one mentioned

[pwinckles]

For what it's worth, I agree with @je4

$ rocfl validate -p 1.1/bad-objects/E001_invalid_version_format
Object urn:example is invalid
  Errors:
    1. [E104] (root) Inventory 'head' must be a valid version number. Found: 1
    2. [E099] (root) Inventory manifest key 'ffc150e7944b5cf5ddb899b2f48efffbd490f97632fc258434aefc4afb92aef2e3441ddcceae11404e5805e1b6c804083c9398c28f061c9ba42dd4bac53d5a2e' contains a path containing an illegal path part. Found: 1/content/my_content/dracula.txt
    3. [E099] (root) Inventory manifest key '69f54f2e9f4568f7df4a4c3b07e4cbda4ba3bba7913c5218add6dea891817a80ce829b877d7a84ce47f93cbad8aa522bf7dd8eda2778e16bdf3c47cf49ee3bdf' contains a path containing an illegal path part. Found: 1/content/my_content/poe.txt
    4. [E104] (root) Inventory 'versions' contains an invalid version number. Found: 1
    5. [E008] (root) Inventory does not contain any valid versions

I start with the root inventory as the source of truth. If the root inventory is not valid, I don't bother validating anything else.

[srerickson]

By contrast, my validation starts with the object directory entries, which is why E001 is the first error to be raised. In any case, I would ok with renaming this to E104 since that error isn't represented in the fixtures and there are two others for E001.

[pwinckles]

Yeah, it honestly does not matter to me what it's named. Like you said originally, validators will arrive at different codes based on strategy. What's important is that they all agree that it's invalid.