W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2006

RE: Assertion coverage

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:58:12 -0400
To: "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF375780FA.EC306BC4-ON852571BC.0004E307-852571BC.0005685F@ca.ibm.com>
Gil,

Thx for the test case. Keep them coming. I added it as Chat-1B. [1]

[1] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/documents/bad/Chat-1B/

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com> 
07/27/2006 07:18 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc

Subject
RE: Assertion coverage






Arthur,
 
There is an error in the test case I sent you. I was working with an old 
version of Woden and so I set the WSDL namespace URI to "
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl". The attached file is correct.
 
Also, the current version of Woden handles this test case fine. It 
reports:
 
Woden[Error],0:0,Binding-0054,An interface has not been specified for a 
binding that specifies operation or fault details. An interface must be 
specified when operation or fault details are specified.
 
- gp

From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:55 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz
Subject: RE: Assertion coverage


Gil, 

The naming convention is as follows: 

1. we are taking about document test cases so the top level folder is 
"document" 

2. The document violates an assertion so it's bad. The subfolder is "bad" 

3. The document violates a Binding assertion so make up a suitable name, 
e.g. Binding, give it a sequence number, i.e. next number is 5, and a 
suffix of B for Bad, "Binding-5B". You could pick another name if you 
like, but give it a sequence number and a B suffix. The fact that it 
violates the assertion Binding-0054 does not have to be in the name since 
you could have many that violate the same assertion. But if you like, you 
could use "Binding-0045-1B" as the name. 

Note that if the assertion is optional (i.e. SHOULD), that the document is 
actually good - just a warning gets raised, so use "good" and "G" as the 
suffix. 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 


"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com> 
07/27/2006 01:53 PM 


To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
cc

Subject
RE: Assertion coverage








I'm not a CVS user, but I'll see if I can become one. 
  
I don't understand the naming convention that makes this case 
"Binding-5B". Could you explain? 
  
I've attached a compressed tar file with the correct directory structure. 
If you could check this over I would appreciate it. 
  
- gp 
 

From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:03 AM
To: Gilbert Pilz
Cc: Jonathan Marsh
Subject: Re: Assertion coverage


Gil, 

Thx for the test case. Could you also create a TestMetadata.xml file too 
pls? 

Concerning checkin, if you are a CVS user, you can create a directory, 
e.g. test-suite/documents/bad/Binding-5B,  for your test case and generate 
a patch file. Then attach the patch file to an email to the mailing list 
and l'll commit it. Otherwise, just attach the wsdl and metadata file. 

For an example, see [1] 

We are aware of some NPEs in Woden. In general, if you find a Woden 
problem, it's very helpful if you open a JIRA and attach the wsdl. [2] 

[1] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/documents/bad/Binding-4B/ 

[2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/Woden 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 

"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com> 
07/26/2006 07:16 PM 


To
"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
cc

Subject
Assertion coverage










Jonathan & Arthur,

As promised, I am working on adding some cases to test the assertions
listed at
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/assertions-r
eport.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8

Having very little imagination, I thought I would start at the top and
work my way down. Attached is a WSDL that violates the Binding-0054
assertion. I've done the following:

1.) Tested a version of this WSDL with an interface
("tns:chatInterface") specified for the "chatSOAPBinding". Woden 425806
parsed and validated this, correct version of the WSDL.

2.) Tested the broken version (without an interface specified for
chatSOAPBinding) against Woden 425806. It got a NullPointerException as
follows:

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
               at
org.apache.woden.internal.DOMWSDLReader.parseBindingOperation(DOMWSDLRea
der.java:1137)
               at
org.apache.woden.internal.DOMWSDLReader.parseBinding(DOMWSDLReader.java:
1008)
               at
org.apache.woden.internal.DOMWSDLReader.parseDescription(DOMWSDLReader.j
ava:286)
               at
org.apache.woden.internal.DOMWSDLReader.readWSDL(DOMWSDLReader.java:140)
               at org.whoozie.SimpleParser.main(SimpleParser.java:22)

What do I need to do to check this test case in?

- gp



Received on Monday, 31 July 2006 00:58:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:41 GMT