- From: Mark Little <mark.little@jboss.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:21:29 +0000
- To: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
- CC: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
I agree. Mark. David Illsley wrote: > > Hi all, > I've been reviewing a problem with the IBM client which has problems > with one of the implementations which doesn't send a RelatesTo on a > non-anonymous response. (I've followed up on this off-list) > It's important that this header be there (pretty fundamental in an > async model) and isn't currently caught by an assertion so I propose > adding the relevant assertions from 1130 and 1230 to 1150 and 1250 to > make sure that the RelatesTo is there e.g. > > <assert test="soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:RelatesTo > = ../preceding-sibling::log:message[@testcase=current()/../@testcase > and > @message='1']/log:content/soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:MessageID"/> > <assert > test="not(soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType) > or soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType = > 'http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/reply'"/> > > This is in my opinion important enough to add even at this late stage > in the game. > > Thoughts? > David > > David Illsley > Web Services Development > MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN > +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049) > david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
Received on Saturday, 4 March 2006 18:21:15 UTC