BaseX-Talk

basex-talk@mailman.uni-konstanz.de

9 participants
5241 discussions

Testing that a value is a UUID
by Graydon Saunders 04 Nov '22

04 Nov '22

Hello -- You can (I think) test if some attribute value is an RFC 4122 UUID by using a regular expression: let $regexp as xs:string := '^[0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-5][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[089abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}$' for $uuid in //@GUID let $value as xs:string := $uuid/string() where not(matches($value,$regexp)) return $value Is there a better way to do this? thanks! Graydon

4 4

Client protocol updated
by Ben Engbers 04 Nov '22

04 Nov '22

Hi, Thanks to the mail from Erik Peterson on the basex client implementation, I learned that the client protocol has been updated and that 'replace/store' have been renamed to 'put/putBinary'. In my RBaseX-client, I used the 'retrieve' command to read binary data. I can't remember where I found that 'retrieve' was used for retrieving binary data. But while implementing 'put/putBinary' I noticed that 'retrieve' is no longer accepted as command. I have added a remark on this to the Clients page. Ben Engbers PS. RBaseX is loaded on average 10 times a day. I have never had any feedback on this package so I don't know in howfar it is really used. Any feedback is welcome!

1 0

is this a bug?
by Rob Stapper 02 Nov '22

02 Nov '22

Hi, I stumbled upon this behavior. Is this a bug? I’m still using Basex version 9.7. Code[1]: let $e := <E>abc</E> update { replace value of node . with ./data() || "def" } return ( $e, $e/data() ) Result: <E>abcdef</E> abc Expecting: <E>abcdef</E> abcdef [1] attachment: “replace-value-of-bug.xq” Pleased to hear from you, Rob Stapper Sent from Mail for Windows -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

2 1

Full-text bug (?) - all words / any word + stemming
by Hans-Juergen Rennau 28 Oct '22

28 Oct '22

Hello, I encountered a behaviour of full-text search which appears to me a bug: (1) OKbasex "'adverse' contains text 'adverse' using stemming" => true (2) NOTOKbasex "'adverse' contains text 'adverse' all words using stemming"=> false (3) NOTOKbasex "'adverse' contains text 'adverse' any word using stemming" => false (4) OK basex "'fox' contains text 'fox' any word using stemming" => true BaseX version is 10.3. With kind regards,Hans-Jürgen

2 1

Client auth debugging
by Erik Peterson 28 Oct '22

28 Oct '22

I'm implementing a client per basex api shown here: https://docs.basex.org/wiki/Server_Protocol#Authentication I'm working on digest auth and I can get back the realm and timestamp. I'm getting an access denied however when I send the username and token. My questions are: 1) What tips are there for debugging authentication implementation? I've set logs.debug to true in .basex and and tail them. I can see access denied but there's no info to help me debug. I'd like to at least see what the server is receiving. Any way to do that? BTW, my token creation is correct per the example in the docs. 2) It's taking a long time, 60s, for the test to run. Any way to speed that up?

3 2

xqDoc - potential updates
by Loren Cahlander 24 Oct '22

24 Oct '22

Hello folks, I am looking at maybe doing some updates to the xqDoc spec and the codebase. I have code that transforms the xqDoc resources with RestXQ into an OpenAPI 3 API documentation. The things that I want to figure out is: Figure out how to specify the schema of the parameters and the return Document the various HTTP return codes and the response content for each return code I would like to get the input from everyone using xqDoc Thank you, Loren

3 2

Lookup operator, conformance
by Hans-Jürgen Rennau 24 Oct '22

24 Oct '22

Hello, I noticed that the lookup operator (?) accepts as key expression also non-parenthesized expressions, e.g.: $map?$key It seems to me that the XQuery spec does not allow that - the key specifier must be an NCName, an integer, * or a parenthesized expression [1]: [126] KeySpecifier ::= NCName | IntegerLiteral | ParenthesizedExpr | "*" So only this should be allowed: $map?($key) But I am not quite sure if I do not overlook something. *My question*: is the acceptance of non-parenthesized key expressions conformant behaviour, or a (certainly intended) laxness? Kind regards, Hans-Jürgen [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-31/#id-lookup

2 2

How to check if a node is from a database
by Hans-Jürgen Rennau 08 Oct '22

08 Oct '22

Dear BaseX people, what would be an efficient way of checking if a given node is a database node? According to the documentation, function db:name() throws an error if the node is not a database node. However, that is not what I observe.(The same applies to db:node-id(), db:node-pre(), db:path()). Therefore I resorted to this way of checking: try {db:name($node) ! db:exists(.)} catch * {false()} That is clumsy and unreliable: if applied to a node in a file, db:name() returns the base name of the file, which might accidentally be a database name. What would you recommend instead? Kind regards, Hans-Jürgen

2 1

ft:mark and differing result sets on 10.2
by Chris Yocum 05 Oct '22

05 Oct '22

Hi, I had a chance to come back to basex after a while when I needed to do some querying on my data set. I updated to 10.2 and loaded the files. This was all fine. I then ran this query: for $x in db:get($db)/sample/entry return ft:mark($x[descendant::text() contains text {'fas'} using wildcards]) which ran in 2528.78ms and return 170 results. This seemed rather slow so I started to work on it. I also ran this: for $x in db:get($db)/sample/entry return $x[descendant::text() contains text {'fas'} using wildcards] which ran in 57.77ms and returned 35 results. I was very suprised by this as I had expected it to run in the same time and return the same result set. I, then, started look deeper and it seems like ft:mark does more than add an XML tag around the matched token? My question is this: does ft:mark do more than what I had expected it to do? Am I misunderstanding or miswriting this query? Thank you and all the best, Chris

3 3

Vulnerabilities in docker image
by Huib Verweij 05 Oct '22

05 Oct '22

Hi, we have built a docker image based on the 10.1 war (and 10.2 war). In Harbor, part of the OpenShift K8s platform that we use, the image is scanned for vulnerabilities. There are quite a few Criticals and Highs! Here’s a list of the most pressing CVEs: CVE package version Fixed in version ================================================================== CVE-2013-7285 com.thoughtworks.xstream:xstream 1.4.2 1.4.7 CVE-2021-21342 com.thoughtworks.xstream:xstream 1.4.2 1.4.16 and 5 more Criticals and a lot more Highs in XStream. There’s also a High in JDOM: CVE-2021-33813 org.jdom:jdom 1.1 The Aqua-Trivy plugin for the Docker Desktop-app reports the same CVEs. Especially the Criticals that are (presumably) easy to fix by upgrading the XStream package are in the way of deployment. Our image is based on tomcat:9-jre17-temurin, when I leave out the BaseX stuff it has just two Low CVEs. Btw, an up to date docker image on Docker Hub would be much appreciated. If it’s also available for the linux/arm64/v8 architecture that would be perfect! Kind regards, Huib.

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

BaseX-Talk