RE: Component Model Results

Jonathan,

Nice work. I need some more detail though to investigate the Woden issues:

You say:

My test result includes /descriptionComponent/elementDeclarations (missing 
in Woden), with two components.  These are referred to from the 
interfaceMessageReferenceComponents through the elementDeclaration 
property (also missing in Woden).  My typeDefinitions element contains two 
components (missing in Woden), the cinfoct and ccinfct types defined in 
the included schema.
 
Which test case is this?

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



"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
04/27/2006 09:42 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Youenn Fablet" 
<youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
cc
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Component Model Results






I managed to run a pass between my stylesheet and Arthur?s files.  None of 
them matched perfectly of course, but I was able to fix my stylesheet to 
get rid of many of the errors: I didn?t put xml:id attributes on all 
components ? just those that needed referring to.  Also, I omitted the 
build-in simple-type definitions.
 
I?m sure there are many more errors in my stylesheet, which doesn?t even 
attempt any wsdl:imports.  However, for the first file I looked at 
carefully I think there?s a Woden problem ;-)
 
My test result includes /descriptionComponent/elementDeclarations (missing 
in Woden), with two components.  These are referred to from the 
interfaceMessageReferenceComponents through the elementDeclaration 
property (also missing in Woden).  My typeDefinitions element contains two 
components (missing in Woden), the cinfoct and ccinfct types defined in 
the included schema.
 
I also added a ?folder? element to test-suite.xml to enable me to build 
paths flexibly.  One of the id/foldernames didn?t match the file system so 
I fixed that.  It would be nice to add a ?good/bad? attribute so I don?t 
have to string-search the id. ;-)  Checked in.
 
Lots of items on my task list now to clean up the results.  Here?s the raw 
numbers though (missing elements in the aspirant generate lots of error 
messages.)  I?m encouraged by the three passing marks!
 
Results
documents/good/Chameleon-1G
getBalance.wsdl
Number of failures: 384
documents/good/Chameleon-2G
getBalance.wsdl
Number of failures: 55
documents/good/Chameleon-3G
getBalance.wsdl
Number of failures: 384
documents/good/Chameleon-4G
getBalance.wsdl
Number of failures: 384
documents/good/CreditCardFaults-1G
use-credit-card-faults.wsdl
Number of failures: 448
documents/good/GreatH-1G
primer-hotelReservationService.wsdl
Number of failures: 46
documents/good/Import-1G
XSDImport.wsdl
Number of failures: 66
documents/good/Import-2G
XSDImport.wsdl
Number of failures: 66
documents/good/Import-2G
XSDImport2.wsdl
Number of failures: 117
documents/good/ImportedWSDL-1G
retrieveDetails.wsdl
Number of failures: 4
documents/good/ImportedWSDL-1G
updateDetails.wsdl
Number of failures: 140
documents/good/Interface-1G
Interface.wsdl
Number of failures: 390
documents/good/Interface-2G
Interface.wsdl
Number of failures: 390
documents/good/Interface-3G
Interface.wsdl
Number of failures: 390
documents/good/Interface-4G
Interface.wsdl
Number of failures: 390
documents/good/Interface-5G
Interface.wsdl
Number of failures: 390
documents/good/Interface-6G
Interface.wsdl
Number of failures: 390
documents/good/Interface-7G
Interface.wsdl
Number of failures: 390
documents/good/MultipleInlineItems-1G
retrieveItems.wsdl
Number of failures: 11
documents/good/SchemaId-1G
schemaIds.wsdl
Number of failures: 54
documents/good/SchemaLocationFragment-1G
Items.wsdl
Number of failures: 3
documents/good/Service-1G
Service.wsdl
Number of failures: 0
documents/good/Service-2G
Service.wsdl
Number of failures: 0
documents/good/Service-3G
Service.wsdl
Number of failures: 0
documents/good/ServiceReference-1G
reservationDetails.wsdl
Number of failures: 162
documents/good/ServiceReference-1G
reservationList.wsdl
Number of failures: 194
documents/good/TicketAgent-1G
TicketAgent.wsdl
Number of failures: 88
documents/good/WeathSvc-1G
WeathSvc.wsdl
Number of failures: 149
documents/good/XsImport-1G
reservation.wsdl
Number of failures: 11
documents/good/XsImport-2G
reservationDetails.wsdl
Number of failures: 93
documents/good/XsImport-2G
reservationItems.wsdl
Number of failures: 3
documents/good/XsImport-3G
reservationDetails.wsdl
Number of failures: 93
documents/good/XsImport-3G
reservationItems.wsdl
Number of failures: 3
 
 

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On 
Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:10 AM
To: Youenn Fablet
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Component Model Results
 

***********************
Warning: Your file, documents.zip, contains more than 32 files after 
decompression and cannot be scanned.
***********************

Youenn, 

I thought I fixed the xs:string problem which you previuosly reported. 
I'll doublecheck. 

Here is my view on the purpose of the testing effort. At this point we are 
really debugging the spec. It is reasonable for a given implementation to 
fail some tests. We are not certifying implementations. However, if no 
implementation can successfully implement some feature, then we need to 
understand why, and potentially alter the spec. 

Interoperability is one way to test the correctness of implementations 
since it is unlikely that they will possess bugs that precisely cancel 
eachother. Even if just one implementation implements a feature, we can 
visually inspect it for correctness. 

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 


Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
04/27/2006 11:49 AM 


To
www-ws-desc@w3.org 
cc
 
Subject
Component Model Results
 


 
 




***********************
Warning: Your file, documents.zip, contains more than 32 files after 
decompression and cannot be scanned.
***********************


Hi all,
I have just finished generating the component model dumps of the wsdl 
good documents.
I just picked the test-suite.xml file and generated my test script 
through XSLT. Fairly quick in fact :-)
Please find attached the results.
Two side notes:
   - There is still a problem with 3 testsuite wsdl files 
(SchemaLocationFragment-1G/Items.wsdl, 
XSImport-2G/reservationItems.wsdl, XSImport-3G/reservationItems.wsdl). 
All of these files make reference to XSD data types through QNames but 
with a wrong namespace. I have fixed these files locally (type="string" 
is now type="xs:string") and produced a dump with these fixed files. I 
added the fixed wsdl files in the attached zip file.
   - Our implementation still fails on the Import-2G example as it 
raises an error when trying to create two components of the same type 
with the same ns+name, the reason being that we have not implemented the 
component equivalence rules. Anyway, the parser still produces a 
component model dump.
I have a process question related to the last point: do we really need 
two interoperable implementations for every aspect of the spec, e.g. the 
equivalence rules ? Or is it sufficient to document the reasons behind 
different behaviors ?
Hope this helps anyway,
Regards,
   Youenn