- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:58:12 -0400
- To: "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF375780FA.EC306BC4-ON852571BC.0004E307-852571BC.0005685F@ca.ibm.com>
Gil, Thx for the test case. Keep them coming. I added it as Chat-1B. [1] [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/documents/bad/Chat-1B/ 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 "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com> 07/27/2006 07:18 PM To Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Assertion coverage Arthur, There is an error in the test case I sent you. I was working with an old version of Woden and so I set the WSDL namespace URI to " http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl". The attached file is correct. Also, the current version of Woden handles this test case fine. It reports: Woden[Error],0:0,Binding-0054,An interface has not been specified for a binding that specifies operation or fault details. An interface must be specified when operation or fault details are specified. - gp From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:55 PM To: Gilbert Pilz Subject: RE: Assertion coverage Gil, The naming convention is as follows: 1. we are taking about document test cases so the top level folder is "document" 2. The document violates an assertion so it's bad. The subfolder is "bad" 3. The document violates a Binding assertion so make up a suitable name, e.g. Binding, give it a sequence number, i.e. next number is 5, and a suffix of B for Bad, "Binding-5B". You could pick another name if you like, but give it a sequence number and a B suffix. The fact that it violates the assertion Binding-0054 does not have to be in the name since you could have many that violate the same assertion. But if you like, you could use "Binding-0045-1B" as the name. Note that if the assertion is optional (i.e. SHOULD), that the document is actually good - just a warning gets raised, so use "good" and "G" as the suffix. 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 "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com> 07/27/2006 01:53 PM To Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Assertion coverage I'm not a CVS user, but I'll see if I can become one. I don't understand the naming convention that makes this case "Binding-5B". Could you explain? I've attached a compressed tar file with the correct directory structure. If you could check this over I would appreciate it. - gp From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:03 AM To: Gilbert Pilz Cc: Jonathan Marsh Subject: Re: Assertion coverage Gil, Thx for the test case. Could you also create a TestMetadata.xml file too pls? Concerning checkin, if you are a CVS user, you can create a directory, e.g. test-suite/documents/bad/Binding-5B, for your test case and generate a patch file. Then attach the patch file to an email to the mailing list and l'll commit it. Otherwise, just attach the wsdl and metadata file. For an example, see [1] We are aware of some NPEs in Woden. In general, if you find a Woden problem, it's very helpful if you open a JIRA and attach the wsdl. [2] [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/documents/bad/Binding-4B/ [2] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/Woden 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 "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com> 07/26/2006 07:16 PM To "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject Assertion coverage Jonathan & Arthur, As promised, I am working on adding some cases to test the assertions listed at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/assertions-r eport.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 Having very little imagination, I thought I would start at the top and work my way down. Attached is a WSDL that violates the Binding-0054 assertion. I've done the following: 1.) Tested a version of this WSDL with an interface ("tns:chatInterface") specified for the "chatSOAPBinding". Woden 425806 parsed and validated this, correct version of the WSDL. 2.) Tested the broken version (without an interface specified for chatSOAPBinding) against Woden 425806. It got a NullPointerException as follows: Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at org.apache.woden.internal.DOMWSDLReader.parseBindingOperation(DOMWSDLRea der.java:1137) at org.apache.woden.internal.DOMWSDLReader.parseBinding(DOMWSDLReader.java: 1008) at org.apache.woden.internal.DOMWSDLReader.parseDescription(DOMWSDLReader.j ava:286) at org.apache.woden.internal.DOMWSDLReader.readWSDL(DOMWSDLReader.java:140) at org.whoozie.SimpleParser.main(SimpleParser.java:22) What do I need to do to check this test case in? - gp
Attachments
- application/octet-stream attachment: Chat-NoBindingInterface.wsdl
Received on Monday, 31 July 2006 00:58:27 UTC