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

RE: Mostly red report

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 13:08:54 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E801D4FE9A@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Arun Gupta" <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>
Cc: "David Illsley" <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, "WS-Addressing Tests" <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org>

Did this get fixed, or is it something I still have to investigate?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arun Gupta [mailto:Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 10:20 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: David Illsley; WS-Addressing Tests; public-ws-addressing-tests-
> request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Mostly red report
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> test1251 for Sun->Sun fails with the following assertion:
> 
> not(soap12:Envelope/soap12:Header/wsa:ReplyTo/wsa:Address =
> 'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous')
> 
> The SOAP request message contains two ReplyTo address, one with "none"
> env:Role and one without. The second ReplyTo contains non-anonymous
> address. Is it possible that the assertions are checking only for the
> first ReplyTo address and reporting the test as failed ?
> 
> -Arun
> 
> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > Done (by Paul).  Turned a few greens to red, pending implementation
of
> > the updated testcase.
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* David Illsley [mailto:david.illsley@uk.ibm.com]
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 03, 2006 2:19 AM
> > *To:* Arun Gupta
> > *Cc:* Jonathan Marsh; WS-Addressing Tests;
> > public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
> > *Subject:* Re: Mostly red report
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry Arun, I said I'd do that.
> >
> > I've just tried and for some reason I can't commit to CVS... getting
a
> > uesless error message :-(
> >
> > It's a pretty simple change - change the description to indicate an
> > application fault, add an assertion:
> >         <assert
> > test="not(../following-
> sibling::log:message[@testcase=current()/../@testcase
> > and @message!='1']) or
> >
count(../following-sibling::log:message[@testcase=current()/../@testcase
> > and @message!='1']/log:content/*) = 0"/>
> >
> > and remove the assertions for ant messages 2,3,4
> >
> > Paul, Hugo, Jonathan, could one of you do this for me as I can't get
CVS
> > to work?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> > David Illsley
> > Web Services Development
> > MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> > +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
> > david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
> >
> > *Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>*
> > Sent by: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
> >
> > 02/03/2006 17:31
> >
> >
> >
> > To
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
> >
> > cc
> >
> >
> >
> > David Illsley/UK/IBM@IBMGB, WS-Addressing Tests
> > <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>,
> > public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
> >
> > Subject
> >
> >
> >
> > Re: Mostly red report
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>  Sun logs don't get past 1234...
> > I do see Sun logs beyond 1234, so not sure what you meant here.
> >
> > Also, it seems like 1152 and 1252 descriptions have not been updated
and
> > that's why Sun logs are failing on that. We agreed on the last call
that
> > this would send a non-anonymous ReplyTo and none FaultTo. The
endpoint
> > will throw a fault and will not be sent back to the client.
> >
> > -Arun
> >
> >>
> >>  We will remove tests 1145 and 1245 tomorrow, per WG decisions.
Also
> >>  1260 will likely be dropped or moved to INFORMATIVE.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Arun Gupta [mailto:Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM]
> >> >Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 9:11 AM
> >> >To: David Illsley
> >> >Cc: Jonathan Marsh; WS-Addressing Tests;
public-ws-addressing-tests-
> >> >request@w3.org
> >> >Subject: Re: Mostly red report
> >> >
> >> >test1147 for IBM->Sun and Microsoft->Sun is now fixed and
endpoints
> >> >updated.
> >> >
> >> >I dont have an easy way to test1147 and test1248 for Sun->Sun. Can
> >>
> >>  that
> >>
> >> >be updated in the stylesheet to reflect that ?
> >> >
> >> >I sent a separate mail about test1251 and still looking for an
> >> >explanation there before I implement it.
> >> >
> >> >-Arun
> >> >
> >> >David Illsley wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Looks  better :-)
> >> >>
> >> >>...but maybe not quite right (Microsoft -> Sun is failing 'cos of
a
> >>
> >>  lack
> >>
> >> >>of a message 2 in 1251 and message 2 shouldn't be required for
> >>
> >>  1251).
> >>
> >> >>I think the following should fix it so that only message elements
in
> >>
> >>  the
> >>
> >> >>testcases.xml which have associated assertions become required.
> >> >>
> >> >>In mkschema.xsl:
> >> >>
> >> >>                                                <xsl:if
> >>
> >>  test="$num!=1">
> >>
> >> >>                                                        <xsl:if
> >> >>test="count(./s:assert)>0">
> >> >>
> >> >><sch:rule
> >>
> >>  context="log:message[@testcase='{$testcase}'][@message='1']">
> >>
> >> >><sch:assert
> >> >>test="following-
> >> >
> >>
>
sibling::log:message[@testcase='{$testcase}'][@message='{$num}']">assert
> >>  io
> >>
> >> >n
> >> >
> >> >>"all required messages present" against <xsl:value-of
> >> >>select="$testcase"/> message <xsl:value-of select="$num"/>
> >> >>failed</sch:assert>
> >> >>
> >> ></sch:rule>
> >> >
> >> >>                                                        </xsl:if>
> >> >>                                                </xsl:if>
> >> >>
> >> >>This makes the IBM->Sun failure on 1251 show up and also that the
> >> >>Microsoft logs need some renumbering but I don't think it throws
up
> >>
> >>  any
> >>
> >> >>red we aren't expecting?
> >> >>
> >> >>I'll generate new reports against those who have asked this
evening
> >> >>(it's easier to do at home because of firewall issues).
> >> >>
> >> >>Cheers,
> >> >>David
> >> >>
> >> >>David Illsley
> >> >>Web Services Development
> >> >>MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> >> >>+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
> >> >>david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>*"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>*
> >> >>Sent by: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
> >> >>
> >> >>02/03/2006 14:50
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>To
> >> >>                 "Arun Gupta" <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>,
"WS-Addressing
> Tests"
> >> >><public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>
> >> >>cc
> >> >>
> >> >>Subject
> >> >>                 RE: Mostly red report
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>My bad, my fix for the "missing message" case caused a side
effect.
> >> >>Checked in a version I'm more confident in.  The next rebuild
will
> >>
> >>  tell.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > From: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
> >>
> >>  [mailto:public-ws-
> >>
> >> >> > addressing-tests-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arun Gupta
> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:51 AM
> >> >> > To: WS-Addressing Tests
> >> >> > Subject: Mostly red report
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The report (dated Thu Mar 2 13:08:37 2006 UTC) turned from
mostly
> >> >>green
> >> >> > to mostly red. It anybody investigating that ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Arun
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > got Web Services ?
> >> >> > Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from
> >> >> > http://java.sun.com/webservices
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >got Web Services ?
> >> >Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from
> >> >http://java.sun.com/webservices
> >
> > --
> > got Web Services ?
> > Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from
> > http://java.sun.com/webservices
> >
> 
> --
> got Web Services ?
> Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from
> http://java.sun.com/webservices
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 21:09:24 UTC

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