Add test crossing equipment example

[skinkie]

Fix #361

[skinkie]

@ue71603 that is fine for me, but then the entire example needs to be changed, not the stuff I changed to have a consistend versionRef, and not in this pull request, because this only adds your example on top of #547

[skinkie]

@ue71603 @Aurige this one is next.

[Aurige]

I don't fully get that example: huge commented part, one single CrossingEquipement that is not used, a lot of declared but not used objects, xsi:schemaLocation on a local drive ... what is the purpose of this example ?

[Aurige]

Also the example does not validate in 'next' due to level that now requires a mandatory RelativeLevelOrder ! I don't remember which PR added this RelativeLevelOrder , and do we really want it mandatory ?

[ue71603]

I don't fully get that example: huge commented part, one single CrossingEquipement that is not used, a lot of declared but not used objects, xsi:schemaLocation on a local drive ... what is the purpose of this example ?

It tests the CrossingExample content. I think it is better than no example at all.

[ue71603]

RelativeLevelOrder

It was done in
PullRequest: #410 (merged)
Branch: EPIAP
Documention: updated in section 9.2.5

If we don't want it mandatory, then we can update it. But we had a length discussion. See also @Joostb61 @duexw

[Aurige]

Thanks @ue71603 for pointing #410 ... it is properly done in EPIAP and all fine for me:

But for some reason, it is also in 'next'... but not as nicely ! And all the examples using level in next were update with an additional RelativeLevelOrder, which is not great since this RelativeLevelOrder is not always meaningful.

[skinkie]

Is the difference in rendering meaning minOccurs.

[Aurige]

Yes, it should have minOccurs=0 (as is the EPIAP branch)

[skinkie]

Yes, it should have minOccurs=0 (as is the EPIAP branch)

For non XMLspy users as me and @Joostb61 it is not directly obvious ;)

[ue71603]

So I guess, we can merge it here (needs approval) from Christophe. I will do a small PR in next so that the minOccur is already there (otherwise it will happen, when we merge the branches)

See also #559

[Aurige]

The example contains a 2200 lines fully commented ServiceFrame: is it for purpose, or can we just remove it ?

[ue71603]

If you want to reduce it to the max, go ahead :-)

[ue71603]

shortened it now

[ue71603]

redone here: #611