W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org > March 2006

RE: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:12:23 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC9522550276F3E3@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>

I'm working on this, and wondering which RelatesTo value should be used
for test1144 - duplicate MessageID fault?

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org on behalf of David Illsley
Sent: Sat 3/4/2006 5:27 PM
To: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
Subject: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250
 
Hi all,
I've been reviewing a problem with the IBM client which has problems with 
one of the implementations which doesn't send a RelatesTo on a 
non-anonymous response. (I've followed up on this off-list)
It's important that this header be there (pretty fundamental in an async 
model) and isn't currently caught by an assertion so I propose adding the 
relevant assertions from 1130 and 1230 to 1150 and 1250 to make sure that 
the RelatesTo is there e.g.

            <assert test="soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:RelatesTo = 
../preceding-sibling::log:message[@testcase=current()/../@testcase and 
@message='1']/log:content/soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:MessageID"/> 
            <assert test=
"not(soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType) or 
soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType = 
'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/reply'"/>

This is in my opinion important enough to add even at this late stage in 
the game.

Thoughts?
David

David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
Received on Sunday, 5 March 2006 19:16:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:54:42 UTC