@brody4hire - C. Jonathan Brody

We are using Stryker for mutation testing to check the quality of the code coverage. It is documented here: https://stryker-mutator.io/

I think it would be ideal to switch to a better known & tested SAX parser, unless we do find something really special about our own parser.

I took the liberty to pin this issue and add a dash, which should hopefully make it extra clear to maintainers like myself that it is proof as in future-proof...

I am now merging issue #103 into this issue, hoping to bring the high-level discussion back here. Coming from PR #112, I am now thinking it would be good to...

My apologies for the delay. Here is my quick reaction so far: I think the most important step is to finish PR #112 to add the `xmltest` cases, in their...

How about an approach like this: - finish the work on xmltest and check our Stryker coverage - see if we can replace the existing SAX parser as discussed in...

We have made some nice progress with improving the test coverage with help from `xmltest` (PR #112) and porting the Vows tests to Jest (PR #121). But I think we...

My idea is to use Prettier to clean up the white space, apply consistent formatting, and apply some consistent styling all at once. I think to do this in multiple...

I think these should be the next steps, as we have discussed: - replace the custom assertions to Jest `expect` statements - switch Stryker over to using the Jest runner...

@karfau I was hoping that you would take over this work. Please feel free to propose the changes as you feel best. FYI I will likely go offline in 1-2...