Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fault Interop Test Cases

Expand Messages
  • Arun Gupta
    Hi all, As an action item from Round IV F2F for Sun, I m here by proposing fault interop test cases as WSDL descriptions. Each operation in portType is
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,

      As an action item from Round IV F2F for Sun, I'm here by proposing fault
      interop test cases as WSDL descriptions. Each operation in portType is
      commented with it's intent.

      I'd also like to start closing in on other action items from Round IV
      F2F. These are listed at
      http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap. This would help us
      in preparing an agenda for Round V F2F which is hosted at Sun
      Microsystems, Burlington Campus
      (http://www.sun.com/corp_emp/boston/map.html).

      Regards,
      -Arun

      --
      =============================================
      There is only one me, I must live myself!
      There is only one today, I must live itself!
      =============================================
      http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
      =============================================
    • Bob Cunnings
      Hi, After looking over the WSDL, I have a question. It is clear that the receiver is to fault in a particular way for each operation. In the rpc/encoded cases
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,

        After looking over the WSDL, I have a question. It is clear that the
        receiver is to fault in a particular way for each operation. In the
        rpc/encoded cases there is no problem in recognizing what needs to be done,
        as the method name identifies the operation (e.g. "echoStringFault"), and is
        present in the request message as the name of the rpc "wrapper element".

        But in the case of the doc/lit operations, there is a problem since multiple
        operations share the same input message element [1]. For instance,
        operations "echoEmptyFault" and "echoStringFault" both use the same input
        message "echoVoidRequest" and thus the element "echoVoidRequest" defined in
        the schema. (SOAPAction is the same also). Thus for both operations the SOAP
        request envelope will look like this on the wire:

        <env:Envelope xmlns:env="...">
        <env:Body><m:echoVoidRequest xmlns:m="http://soapbuilders.org/types"
        /></env:Body>
        </env:Envelope>

        It's impossible to distinguish between the operations this way, and so to
        fault in the manner expected for testing purposes. Perhaps the operations
        could each be given their own unique input message element for dispatch
        purposes.

        If i'm missing something here, please let me know.

        RC

        [1] http://www.whitemesa.net/r4/wsdl/simple-doc-literal.wsdl

        > Hi all,
        >
        > As an action item from Round IV F2F for Sun, I'm here by proposing fault
        > interop test cases as WSDL descriptions. Each operation in portType is
        > commented with it's intent.
        >
        > I'd also like to start closing in on other action items from Round IV
        > F2F. These are listed at
        > http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap. This would help us
        > in preparing an agenda for Round V F2F which is hosted at Sun
        > Microsystems, Burlington Campus
        > (http://www.sun.com/corp_emp/boston/map.html).
        >
        > Regards,
        > -Arun
        >
      • Bob Cunnings
        Hi, I ve run into a problem with the WSDL. In the bindings, the name attribute is omitted from the soap:fault element, on all operations except
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi,

          I've run into a problem with the WSDL. In the bindings, the "name" attribute
          is omitted from the soap:fault element, on all operations except
          "echoEmptyFault" in the "simple-rpc-encoded" service. This differs from the
          usage prescribed in the WSDL 1.1 spec [1], and breaks the WSDL reader here.
          I've taken the liberty of updating the copies of the docs pointed to from
          the Round 4 page. [2].

          Thanks,

          RC

          [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_soap:fault
          [2] http://www.whitemesa.net/r4/interop4.html


          > Hi all,
          >
          > As an action item from Round IV F2F for Sun, I'm here by proposing fault
          > interop test cases as WSDL descriptions. Each operation in portType is
          > commented with it's intent.
          >
          > I'd also like to start closing in on other action items from Round IV
          > F2F. These are listed at
          > http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap. This would help us
          > in preparing an agenda for Round V F2F which is hosted at Sun
          > Microsystems, Burlington Campus
          > (http://www.sun.com/corp_emp/boston/map.html).
          >
          > Regards,
          > -Arun
          >
        • Arun Gupta
          I ll post the updated WSDLs shortly. Thanks for pointing this out. Regards, -Arun ... -- ============================================= There is only one me, I
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            I'll post the updated WSDLs shortly. Thanks for pointing this out.

            Regards,
            -Arun

            Bob Cunnings wrote:

            > Hi,
            >
            > After looking over the WSDL, I have a question. It is clear that the
            > receiver is to fault in a particular way for each operation. In the
            > rpc/encoded cases there is no problem in recognizing what needs to be
            > done,
            > as the method name identifies the operation (e.g. "echoStringFault"),
            > and is
            > present in the request message as the name of the rpc "wrapper element".
            >
            > But in the case of the doc/lit operations, there is a problem since
            > multiple
            > operations share the same input message element [1]. For instance,
            > operations "echoEmptyFault" and "echoStringFault" both use the same input
            > message "echoVoidRequest" and thus the element "echoVoidRequest"
            > defined in
            > the schema. (SOAPAction is the same also). Thus for both operations
            > the SOAP
            > request envelope will look like this on the wire:
            >
            > <env:Envelope xmlns:env="...">
            > <env:Body><m:echoVoidRequest xmlns:m=" http://soapbuilders.org/types "
            > /></env:Body>
            > </env:Envelope>
            >
            > It's impossible to distinguish between the operations this way, and so to
            > fault in the manner expected for testing purposes. Perhaps the operations
            > could each be given their own unique input message element for dispatch
            > purposes.
            >
            > If i'm missing something here, please let me know.
            >
            > RC
            >
            > [1] http://www.whitemesa.net/r4/wsdl/simple-doc-literal.wsdl
            >
            > > Hi all,
            > >
            > > As an action item from Round IV F2F for Sun, I'm here by proposing fault
            > > interop test cases as WSDL descriptions. Each operation in portType is
            > > commented with it's intent.
            > >
            > > I'd also like to start closing in on other action items from Round IV
            > > F2F. These are listed at
            > > http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap. This would help us
            > > in preparing an agenda for Round V F2F which is hosted at Sun
            > > Microsystems, Burlington Campus
            > > (http://www.sun.com/corp_emp/boston/map.html).
            > <http://www.sun.com/corp_emp/boston/map.html%29.>
            > >
            > > Regards,
            > > -Arun
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > ADVERTISEMENT
            > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229441.2311215.3726473.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705701014:HM/A=1189558/R=0/*http://www.bmgmusic.com/acq/ee/q6/enroll/mhn/9/>
            >
            >
            >
            > -----------------------------------------------------------------
            > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
            > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
            > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


            --
            =============================================
            There is only one me, I must live myself!
            There is only one today, I must live itself!
            =============================================
            http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
            =============================================
          • Arun Gupta
            The updated WSDLs along with the test specifications are available at http://soapinterop.java.sun.com/soapbuilders/r4/index.html Regards, -Arun ... --
            Message 5 of 5 , Sep 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              The updated WSDLs along with the test specifications are available at
              http://soapinterop.java.sun.com/soapbuilders/r4/index.html

              Regards,
              -Arun

              Bob Cunnings wrote:

              > Hi,
              >
              > I've run into a problem with the WSDL. In the bindings, the "name"
              > attribute
              > is omitted from the soap:fault element, on all operations except
              > "echoEmptyFault" in the "simple-rpc-encoded" service. This differs
              > from the
              > usage prescribed in the WSDL 1.1 spec [1], and breaks the WSDL reader
              > here.
              > I've taken the liberty of updating the copies of the docs pointed to from
              > the Round 4 page. [2].
              >
              > Thanks,
              >
              > RC
              >
              > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_soap:fault
              > [2] http://www.whitemesa.net/r4/interop4.html
              >
              >
              > > Hi all,
              > >
              > > As an action item from Round IV F2F for Sun, I'm here by proposing fault
              > > interop test cases as WSDL descriptions. Each operation in portType is
              > > commented with it's intent.
              > >
              > > I'd also like to start closing in on other action items from Round IV
              > > F2F. These are listed at
              > > http://www.xmlbus.com/interop/roundIV.html#roadmap. This would help us
              > > in preparing an agenda for Round V F2F which is hosted at Sun
              > > Microsystems, Burlington Campus
              > > (http://www.sun.com/corp_emp/boston/map.html).
              > <http://www.sun.com/corp_emp/boston/map.html%29.>
              > >
              > > Regards,
              > > -Arun
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > ADVERTISEMENT
              > <http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_geocities/lrec2b_1_01.jpg>
              > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2303158.3720906.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705701014:HM/A=810373/R=0/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs>
              >
              > <http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_geocities/lrec2d_2_02.gif>
              > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2303158.3720906.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705701014:HM/A=810373/R=1/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs>
              >
              >
              >
              > -----------------------------------------------------------------
              > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss
              > implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
              > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


              --
              =============================================
              There is only one me, I must live myself!
              There is only one today, I must live itself!
              =============================================
              http://members.tripod.com/~apgupta/index.html
              =============================================
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.