Cover absolute path filter queries

[Marcono1234]

It might be good to add tests for using an absolute path (that is $ instead of @) in a filter selector, e.g. $[?$.a==1]. Currently the filter tests only seem to cover relative paths (@) or invalid selectors with absolute paths, but not any valid selectors with absolute paths.

Might be good to cover:

• existence test without segment: $[?$]
• some 'normal' filter expressions, e.g. $[?$.a==1]
• using (...), e.g. $[?($.a==1)]
• equals self: $[?$==$] (similar to Add filter test for equality with self #71)
• equals with relative path
  • selector: $[?@[0] == $[0]] and $[?$[0] == @[0]]
  • document: [0, [0, 1], [1, 2]]
• applying the filter selector to a nested value and making sure $ is evaluated absolute and not relative, for example:
  • selector: $.a[?$.b==2]
  • document: {"a": [{"b": 1}], "b": 2}

What do you think?

[gregsdennis]

jsonpath-compliance-test-suite/tests/filter.json

Lines 573 to 647 in 7bd8532

	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, index, equal",
	"selector": "$[?($[0, 0]==42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, index, not equal",
	"selector": "$[?($[0, 0]!=42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, index, less-or-equal",
	"selector": "$[?($[0, 0]<=42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, name, equal",
	"selector": "$[?($['a', 'a']==42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, name, not equal",
	"selector": "$[?($['a', 'a']!=42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, name, less-or-equal",
	"selector": "$[?($['a', 'a']<=42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, combined, equal",
	"selector": "$[?($[0, '0']==42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, combined, not equal",
	"selector": "$[?($[0, '0']!=42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, combined, less-or-equal",
	"selector": "$[?($[0, '0']<=42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, wildcard, equal",
	"selector": "$[?($.*==42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, wildcard, not equal",
	"selector": "$[?($.*!=42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, wildcard, less-or-equal",
	"selector": "$[?($.*<=42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, slice, equal",
	"selector": "$[?($[0:0]==42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, slice, not equal",
	"selector": "$[?($[0:0]!=42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},
	{
	"name": "absolute non-singular query, slice, less-or-equal",
	"selector": "$[?($[0:0]<=42)]",
	"invalid_selector": true
	},

What we need is absolute singular query tests.

[taimoorzaeem]

@gregsdennis @glyn What's the update on this? Currently, we only have absolute non-singular query tests that are invalid. How about adding some more tests related to this that also have a document and result? Would you accept a PR?

[glyn]

Sure!

[gregsdennis]

Yes, happy to see a PR that fills any gaps.