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

RE: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:34:19 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC9522550276F3E6@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>

Ok, I've done my best to slap these in, and they work on the example 
messages, apart from 1144 and 1244 which make little sense in the
async case anyway. 

New report is committing  ... brave yourselves for some more red!

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org on behalf of David Illsley
Sent: Sat 3/4/2006 5:27 PM
To: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org
Subject: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250
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 
            <assert test=
"not(soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType) or 
soap11:Envelope/soap11:Header/wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType = 

This is in my opinion important enough to add even at this late stage in 
the game.


David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
Received on Sunday, 5 March 2006 19:38:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:29:02 UTC