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

WSO2 -> Axis issues (PLEASE READ, SPEC/TEST ISSUES)

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:37:53 -0500
Message-ID: <80A43FC052CE3949A327527DCD5D6B2701986B15@MAIL01.bedford.progress.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>
Cc: <dims@apache.org>


Hi folks:

Some issues with these results... I'd like to get things all green if
possible, so would like to get these sorted.

1) Most of the failures are being caused by WSO2 sending <ReplyTo> of
"none" in the problem header tests (1140-1244 and 1146,1246,1247).
Aside from the "duplicate FaultTo" tests (1142,1242), I believe Axis is
behaving entirely reasonably according to the spec - we are generating a
fault (for instance, "duplicate To header") and then sending it to the
FaultTo address, which defaults to the ReplyTo address if no <FaultTo>
is present.  In this case, it goes nowhere because of the "none"
ReplyTo.  We clarified this behavior on the WSA call this week.

As it stands, everyone else is "passing" this test, and I think here we
have an issue.  Nothing in the spec says, for example, "ignore ReplyTo
in the case of duplicate To headers".  I could see an interpretation
that "if any WSA processing fails, ignore all WSA stuff" (though the
spec certainly doesn't say that), but that doesn't seem to be what's
happening here either, since we're checking for WSA stuff in the
responses....  So basically, right now everyone else seems to be
assuming that faults should go to anonymous regardless of <ReplyTo> in
the case of WSA header issues.  If we want that, we should make the spec
say that - otherwise we should correct the current behavior.

I'd suggest a new test which has a problem header (dup Tos, say), no
<FaultTo>, and a <ReplyTo> of none - then we assert no response content.
Also, we could add a check for "(no ReplyTo) OR (ReplyTo =! 'none')" on
the appropriate tests.

Alternately we could make the spec actually specify "always send to
anonymous for WSA problems", but I think that's a bigger change for WSA.

2) WSO2 is doing the same thing Microsoft is doing on test 1170, using a
value of "true" for SOAP 1.1 mustUnderstand when in fact the only valid
values are "1" and "0".  This should get fixed at MS/WSO2, as it's
either a test client problem or a SOAP infrastructure problem on the
client side.

3) test1138 was a problem with the client message... what's up with this
(it actually looks OK to me), and if they're sending the same message to
everyone why isn't this assertion failing for everyone?  Jonathan /
Paul?

Thoughts appreciated.

Thanks,
--Glen
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 13:40:03 UTC

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