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

test1149 and test1249 [was RE: New test]

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:52:43 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC9522550276F48C@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>

I've added two new test cases, and marked them
as INFORMATIONAL for now as they exhibit
REQUIRED features, we already have coverage of 
the 'features' elsewhere, so I don't think they're
stricktly REQUIRED for CR.

We can upgrade them if we go through another
round of CR testing for Core, SOAP or even WSDL
- make sense?

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com]
Sent: Fri 3/17/2006 11:31 PM
To: Downey,P,Paul,CXMA C
Cc: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
Subject: RE: New test
 

D'oh, I knew I'd forget something!

The new message (duplicateToReplyToNone.xml?) should look just like
duplicateToRequest.xml, but with a ReplyTo of none:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<soap11:Envelope
xmlns:soap11="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
  <soap11:Header>
    <wsa:Action>http://example.org/action/echoIn</wsa:Action>
 
<wsa:MessageID>urn:uuid:BCF59302-0E0B-4EF8-B581-6F2DAFF007AF</wsa:Messag
eID>
    <wsa:To>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous</wsa:To>
    <wsa:To>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous</wsa:To>
    <wsa:ReplyTo>
 
<wsa:Address>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none</wsa:Address>
    </wsa:ReplyTo>
  </soap11:Header>
  <soap11:Body>
    <m:echoIn xmlns:m="http://example.org/echo">Echo This
Text</m:echoIn>
  </soap11:Body>
</soap11:Envelope>

--Glen 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 1:29 PM
> To: Glen Daniels; public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
> Subject: RE: New test
> 
> I'm looking into adding this new test when I noticed test1140 
> and test1146 already send the duplicateToRequest.xml message.
> 
> So how are these tests different to your new one - I'd expect 
> the example messages to be different!?
> 
> Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org on behalf of 
> Glen Daniels
> Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 11:55 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
> Subject: New test
>  
> 
> 
> Here's the test I was suggesting, in what I hope is the right format.
> 
> Should we do both a SOAP 1.1 and a SOAP 1.2 version of this?
> 
> --G
> 
>   <testcase xml:id="test1149"
>     cr="REQUIRED">
>     <title>SOAP 1.1 two-way message with a duplicate To 
> header and a ReplyTo of none.</title>
>     <description><![CDATA[Two-way message exchange containing 
> a duplicate To header and ReplyTo of none.  An 
> InvalidAddressingHeader fault should be generated, but not 
> sent due to the ReplyTo header.]]></description>
>     <features>
> 	<feature>soap08</feature>
>       <feature>core10</feature>
>     </features>
>     <message-exchange type="SOAP11-HTTP-In-Out-Fault"
> addr-binding="soap11">
> 	<message from="A" to="B"
> document="echo/soap11/duplicateToRequest.xml" name="message">
> 	    <assert 
> test="count(soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:To) = 2"/> 
>           <assert
> test="soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:ReplyTo/wsa:Address = 
> 'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/none'">
>           <assert 
> test="count(soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:FaultTo)
> = 0"/>
> 	</message>
> 	<message from="B" to="A"/>
>     </message-exchange>
>   </testcase>
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 12:57:09 UTC

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