- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:14:58 -0000
- To: <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>
Hi David Thanks for the detailed work and instructions here! I'd like to take some time and think carefully about this. The approach I was considering was for these message patterns 'correctly' numbering the messages '1','2','3','4' to match the messages identified on messsage-exchange patterns page: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/exchanges/#SOAP12-HTTP-In-Out-Callback It's a bigger change, but may save churn later. Paul -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org on behalf of David Illsley Sent: Sun 1/29/2006 4:49 PM 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 tests. 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 tests: <assert test= "../following-sibling::log:message[@testcase=current()/../@testcase 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: Replace <xsl:for-each select="//wsi-log303:messageEntry"> with <xsl:for-each select="//wsi-log303:messageEntry[string-length(wsi-log303:messageContent/text())>0]"> 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" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" xmlns:log="http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addressing/logs/" xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> <xsl:output method="xml" version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" indent="yes"/> <xsl:template match="* | comment()"> <xsl:copy> <xsl:apply-templates select="@*"/> <xsl:apply-templates/> </xsl:copy> </xsl:template> <xsl:template match="log:message"> <xsl:copy> <xsl:apply-templates select="@*"/> <xsl:call-template name="testcase-message-renumber"> <xsl:with-param name="testcase" select="@testcase"/> </xsl:call-template> <xsl:apply-templates/> </xsl:copy> </xsl:template> <xsl:template name="testcase-message-renumber"> <xsl:param name="testcase"/> <xsl:attribute name="message"> <xsl:choose> <xsl:when test="preceding-sibling::log:message[@testcase=$testcase]">2</xsl:when> <xsl:otherwise>1</xsl:otherwise></xsl:choose> </xsl:attribute> </xsl:template> <xsl:template match="@*"> <xsl:copy-of select="."/> </xsl:template> </xsl:stylesheet> 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! Cheers, David David Illsley Web Services Development IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049) david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 11:15:09 UTC