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

RE: A fix for the async case and the WS-I logs

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:43:28 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E80184F7D2@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Illsley" <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>
There are unfortunately a couple of test cases that rely on the message
number - 1236 and 1237.  It's not clear these tests can be run reliably
against the variety of log formats we have.  (So far these tests have
been giving constant green results.)


Yuk, what a mess.  This boils down to the same concepts exposed in the
debate between the correspondence of WSDL and SOAP MEPs.  Some of our
logs/stylesheets/testcases assume the SOAP MEP model - a non-anonymous
r/r consists of two SOAP one-way MEPs and therefore 4 HTTP messages.
Some of our materials assume the WSDL MEP model, which means  2 messages
for r/r regardless.


We need to decide which is the right approach, as many things need to be
fixed either way.  The simplest fix is as David suggests, to strip out
extra messages and not be able to examine HTTP responses without SOAP


But it does seem like useful capability to be able to add assertions
about HTTP responses without soap envelopes.  But the fixes involved are
pretty invasive.


The fix to the WS-I logs can probably be done most easily directly in
ws-i.xsl by inserting this fragment in place (two times) of the existing
attribute generation:


            <xsl:attribute name="message">


                                    <xsl:when test="@type='request' and

                                    <xsl:when test="@type='response' and

                                    <xsl:when test="@type='request' and

                                    <xsl:when test="@type='response' and




Microsoft log generation would have to be updated too, if not to insert
the missing messages, at least to insert the right message ID (2s would
have to become 3s on non-anonymous messages).


Unfortunately the testcases document does not use the message numbers
from the message exchange document.  We should probably replace <message
from="A" to="B" ...> with something like <message order="1" ...>


Mkschema.xsl would need corresponding changes, to match assertions up
with the correct message id number.


Some of the assertions (1236,1237) would need to be fixed - they rely on
fixed message numbers.  We could add additional assertions such as David


This is complex enough that I didn't want to proceed without everyone's


Alternatively we could strip messages and number the messages just in
ws-i.xsl, and maybe even live with or make small fixes to the testcases
document and mkschema.xsl.  But that loses the ability to examine (or at
least count) the HTTP responses.


P.S. I would be very surprised if running multiple tests in a single log
works reliably in any case.  At this point I'd be reluctant to invest
the diligence necessary to verify that this works...




From: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:50 AM
To: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
Subject: A fix for the async case and the WS-I logs


I like green... and here's how we (well just IBM at the moment) can get
some more... 

The area of the WS-I logs that I think caused most problems were those
tests which use non-anonymous reply/fault to addresses. In these cases
the WS-I monitor consists of 2 request response logs for each of these
The problem is how to select the 2 relevant messages from the 4 to apply
the assertions againt. I'm proposing a pretty simplistic solution, which
has at least one general down side but which I'm happy to accept for
logs submitted by IBM. 

The approach is twofold: 
        1. Remove all messageEntry elements from the WS-I log files (or
more accurately don't copy them across) which have an empty
messageContent element 
                In order to confirm that messages haven't been removed
that should have assertions applied againt them, I suggest adding the
following assertion to the first message of the aync tests: 
        2. When there are multiple message elements in the WS-Addressing
log file format with the same testcase id, renumber the message value of
the second one to 2. 
                This is where the downside comes in ... it doesn't allow
runs of the same test in the same log. It also mandates that there is no
re-ordering of the logs but right now that isn't a problem. 
                There are more advanced things we could do to pick out
the second message as a reply e.g. examining the contents for an echoOut
or Fault element or even using the WSAddressin 
                 RelatesTo value but that was beyond my XPath expertise 

        In order to confirm that this all works can I also suggest
adding the following assertion to the request messages of the async
and @message='2']"/> 

No doubt Jonathan and Paul can come up with a better way of doing it if
they have time but to keep things going I've got a very basic working
solution going (sorry if my XSLT/XPath is horrendously inefficient). 
It consists of 2 changes: 

1, ws-i.xsl: 
And similarly for the other namespace 

2. Add yet another file to the pipeline for the WS-I logs: fix-asyc.xslt

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> 
<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
        <xsl:output method="xml" version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"
        <xsl:template match="* | comment()"> 
                        <xsl:apply-templates select="@*"/> 
        <xsl:template match="log:message"> 
                        <xsl:apply-templates select="@*"/> 
                        <xsl:with-param name="testcase"
        <xsl:template name="testcase-message-renumber"> 
                <xsl:param name="testcase"/> 
                <xsl:attribute name="message"> 
        <xsl:template match="@*"> 
                <xsl:copy-of select="."/> 

This should make the IBM-IBM column from the event logs all green... and
should be usable by the other participants using the WS-I tool if
they're happy to accept the limitation I mentioned above. 
Paul, if this seems reasonable can you add these changes to the
workflow, at least for the IBM case? 
Now for some attention to the new tests! 

David Illsley
Web Services Development
IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 08:35:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:29:01 UTC