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 17:18:12 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E801D502F9@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>

So:

not(soap12:Envelope/soap12:Header/wsa:ReplyTo/wsa:Address =
'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous')

should be more like

not(soap12:Envelope/soap12:Header/wsa:ReplyTo[not(@soap12:role)]/wsa:Add
ress = 'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous')

I guess.  That is, the wsa:ReplyTo that is targeted to the node can't be
anonymous, the wsa:ReplyTo that is targeted can have any value at all.

I'm going to go ahead and check this fix in, along with a rollup which
shows 1251 passing for Sun, and beg forgiveness in the morning if you
have a better fix in mind.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arun Gupta [mailto:Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:12 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: David Illsley; WS-Addressing Tests; public-ws-addressing-tests-
> request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Mostly red report
> 
> Still needs to be fixed.
> 
> -Arun
> 
> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> 
> --
> got Web Services ?
> Download Java Web Services Developer Pack from
> http://java.sun.com/webservices
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 01:18:32 UTC

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