Some Holder unit test cases are commented out due to inherent awkwardness in testing them. The issue has to do with how the test asserts existence of nodes in the reconstructed payload - it is assumed that they exist at the same path, which is not the case for disclosures (directly or transitively) within arrays, as their index could change based on the number of lower-index disclosures which aren’t presented.
What could be done is to make the test assertion smarter, so that these can at least be run; i.e. rewrite the test assertions so that they are aware of the fact that nodes at paths passing through arrays could be present at different-indices versions of the same path (and to probably anticipate the exact array indices).
Feel free to contact @kristijantbtl and/or @m4t1j4 for any further questions/concerns.
Some Holder unit test cases are commented out due to inherent awkwardness in testing them. The issue has to do with how the test asserts existence of nodes in the reconstructed payload - it is assumed that they exist at the same path, which is not the case for disclosures (directly or transitively) within arrays, as their index could change based on the number of lower-index disclosures which aren’t presented.
What could be done is to make the test assertion smarter, so that these can at least be run; i.e. rewrite the test assertions so that they are aware of the fact that nodes at paths passing through arrays could be present at different-indices versions of the same path (and to probably anticipate the exact array indices).
Feel free to contact @kristijantbtl and/or @m4t1j4 for any further questions/concerns.