You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2009/10/15 11:39:56 UTC
OASIS compliance test status
Here's the current state of the Assembly and SCA-J CAA tests:
To make it a bit easier to see whats going wrong I've just updated otests
runners so that missing and incorrect error messages get logged to a file in
the test runner target directory, and so that messages which start with an
astrix don't fail the tests so its now easier to see the state by just
looking in the tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-errors.properties files (ie anything
starting with an * needs investigating).
Running all the tests gives:
Assembly Tests
Tests run: 136, Failures: 23, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
59 *'d messages
Java CAA Tests
Tests run: 157, Failures: 40, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
39 *'d messages
So thats a total of 239 issues to fix (ie 23+59 +40+78+39), and at a guess
of 30 minutes an issue that would take someone about a month!
If anyone wants to help the README in the top level otest folder has details
on how to use the test suites -
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/otest/newlayout/README
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Hey, good news indeed!
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I've fixed 6016 in r833640, though i've not been paying close
>> attention to all the recent policy framework changes - is there a
>> better way for checking intent matching than whats done in r833640?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> I'll take a look at the change as I'm interesting in how this works.
> In the mean time is there a tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-error.properties
> file update that goes with this change?
>
Oh yes, was left off the previous commit, added that in r834017.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
> I've fixed 6016 in r833640, though i've not been paying close
> attention to all the recent policy framework changes - is there a
> better way for checking intent matching than whats done in r833640?
>
> ...ant
>
I'll take a look at the change as I'm interesting in how this works.
In the mean time is there a tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-error.properties
file update that goes with this change?
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Currently, I am looking at 12007.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:30 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Ok, a few more fixes in and down to...
> >>
> >> Failed tests:
> >> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
> >>
> >> Tests run: 124, Failures: 8, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> >>
> >> Am looking at 12007 now.
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >
> > Some of those looked familiar so i ran through them again with no
> > local fixes and after a bit of clean up this is what I get:
> >
> > testDummy(client.ASM_5005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3367
> > testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase) TUSCANY-3225
> > testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase) TUSCANY-3205
> > testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase) TUSCANY-3201
> > testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) .
> > testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase) TUSCANY-3323
> > testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3335
> > testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) .
> >
> > Those JIRAs are for existing issues that we have open with the OASIS
> > test code (except TUSCANY-3225), so that leaves only 5026, 6016 and
> > 12007 left due to Tuscany issues. I'll have a look at 6016.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> I've fixed 6016 in r833640, though i've not been paying close
> attention to all the recent policy framework changes - is there a
> better way for checking intent matching than whats done in r833640?
>
> ...ant
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: Intent matching, was: Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have defined [2] as the extension SPI and it needs to
> be extended to add "validate" operations. I have started to code up the
> PolicyValidator.
>
How are you doing with that PolicyValidator code? There are several of
the CI tests (the 800x ones) that are failing as the runtime isn't
doing intent matching, i was going to add the the simple approach from
r833640 but its probably better to get the PolicyValidator doing it
properly.
...ant
Re: Intent matching, was: Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
No i didnt think so either which is why i emailed about it, as i
couldn't find any code like the PolicyValidator.
...ant
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think we can simply check if the two set of intents are equal by
> name. Please see previous discussions on [1]. For example,
>
> Case 1:
> reference: sca:clientAuthentication
> service: sca:serverAuthentication
>
> Case 2:
> reference: tuscany:logging
> service: (no logging)
>
> Both cases should be valid wires from policy perspective. These validations
> should be handled by the policy languages that define the
> intents/policySets. We have defined [2] as the extension SPI and it needs to
> be extended to add "validate" operations. I have started to code up the
> PolicyValidator.
>
> [1] http://osdir.com/ml/dev-tuscany.apache.org/2009-09/msg00358.html.
> [2] org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.builder.PolicyBuilder
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:09 AM
> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:30 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, a few more fixes in and down to...
>>>>
>>>> Failed tests:
>>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
>>>>
>>>> Tests run: 124, Failures: 8, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>
>>>> Am looking at 12007 now.
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some of those looked familiar so i ran through them again with no
>>> local fixes and after a bit of clean up this is what I get:
>>>
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3367
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase) TUSCANY-3225
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase) TUSCANY-3205
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase) TUSCANY-3201
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) .
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase) TUSCANY-3323
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3335
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) .
>>>
>>> Those JIRAs are for existing issues that we have open with the OASIS
>>> test code (except TUSCANY-3225), so that leaves only 5026, 6016 and
>>> 12007 left due to Tuscany issues. I'll have a look at 6016.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> I've fixed 6016 in r833640, though i've not been paying close
>> attention to all the recent policy framework changes - is there a
>> better way for checking intent matching than whats done in r833640?
>>
>> ...ant
>
>
Intent matching, was: Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I don't think we can simply check if the two set of intents are equal by
name. Please see previous discussions on [1]. For example,
Case 1:
reference: sca:clientAuthentication
service: sca:serverAuthentication
Case 2:
reference: tuscany:logging
service: (no logging)
Both cases should be valid wires from policy perspective. These validations
should be handled by the policy languages that define the
intents/policySets. We have defined [2] as the extension SPI and it needs to
be extended to add "validate" operations. I have started to code up the
PolicyValidator.
[1] http://osdir.com/ml/dev-tuscany.apache.org/2009-09/msg00358.html.
[2] org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.builder.PolicyBuilder
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:09 AM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:30 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Ok, a few more fixes in and down to...
>>>
>>> Failed tests:
>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
>>>
>>> Tests run: 124, Failures: 8, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>
>>> Am looking at 12007 now.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> Some of those looked familiar so i ran through them again with no
>> local fixes and after a bit of clean up this is what I get:
>>
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3367
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase) TUSCANY-3225
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase) TUSCANY-3205
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase) TUSCANY-3201
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) .
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase) TUSCANY-3323
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3335
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) .
>>
>> Those JIRAs are for existing issues that we have open with the OASIS
>> test code (except TUSCANY-3225), so that leaves only 5026, 6016 and
>> 12007 left due to Tuscany issues. I'll have a look at 6016.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> I've fixed 6016 in r833640, though i've not been paying close
> attention to all the recent policy framework changes - is there a
> better way for checking intent matching than whats done in r833640?
>
> ...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:30 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Ok, a few more fixes in and down to...
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 124, Failures: 8, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>
>> Am looking at 12007 now.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> Some of those looked familiar so i ran through them again with no
> local fixes and after a bit of clean up this is what I get:
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_5005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3367
> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase) TUSCANY-3225
> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase) TUSCANY-3205
> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase) TUSCANY-3201
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) .
> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase) TUSCANY-3323
> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3335
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) .
>
> Those JIRAs are for existing issues that we have open with the OASIS
> test code (except TUSCANY-3225), so that leaves only 5026, 6016 and
> 12007 left due to Tuscany issues. I'll have a look at 6016.
>
> ...ant
>
I've fixed 6016 in r833640, though i've not been paying close
attention to all the recent policy framework changes - is there a
better way for checking intent matching than whats done in r833640?
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ok, a few more fixes in and down to...
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 124, Failures: 8, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> Am looking at 12007 now.
>
> Simon
>
Some of those looked familiar so i ran through them again with no
local fixes and after a bit of clean up this is what I get:
testDummy(client.ASM_5005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3367
testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase) TUSCANY-3225
testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase) TUSCANY-3205
testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase) TUSCANY-3201
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) .
testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase) TUSCANY-3323
testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3335
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) .
Those JIRAs are for existing issues that we have open with the OASIS
test code (except TUSCANY-3225), so that leaves only 5026, 6016 and
12007 left due to Tuscany issues. I'll have a look at 6016.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Ok, a few more fixes in and down to...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
Tests run: 124, Failures: 8, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Am looking at 12007 now.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase) - possible OASIS issue as per [1]
testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase) - possible OASIS issue as per [1]
testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase) - apparently not reported before
but the same "multiple bindings with the same name" issue as 5034
testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase) - possible OASIS issue as per [1]
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) - Policy, should be able to fix
Tuscany to get this working now?
testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase) - possible OASIS issue as per [1]
testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) - possible OASIS issue as per [1]
testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase) - Looks like our error message
file is still wrong here - Simon checking
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) - Should throw exception but doesn't
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) - Slight difference in the way
the schema error is reported - needs investigating
Regards
Simon
[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200910/msg00045.html
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
With what I believe to be a clean and up to date (as of 10 mins ago)
checkout of both Tuscany and the OASIS assembly otests this is what I
get.
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
Tests run: 124, Failures: 11, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Just looking through them now
Regards
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Simon for clarifying the same.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> re. 12004 see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3340
>
> Simon
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
re. 12004 see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3340
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
With the latest code, I see the following issue in 1200x series
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3365
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) - Removed from SVN
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3364
new issues have been raised for 12003 and 120011. And 12004 testcase seem to
be missing from the svn, not sure if this was intentional.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> I have yet another slightly different combination.
>
> MAVEN_OPTS=-Xmx1024m -Xms1024m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m
>
> But like Ant am on Maven 2.1.0
>
> Simon
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Status update on the policy tests....
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.POL_9015_TestCase) - relies on txn policy
testDummy(client.POL_9017_TestCase) - relies on txn policy
testDummy(client.POL_9006_TestCase) - relies on txn policy
testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3370 - possibly relies
on doing more work in binding.ws
testDummy(client.POL_4003_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3372
testDummy(client.POL_9018_TestCase) - relies on txn policy
testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase) - relies on noListener intent
testDummy(client.POL_9009_TestCase) - relies on txn policy
testDummy(client.POL_9016_TestCase) - relies on txn policy
testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3370 - possibly
relies on doing more work in binding.ws
Tests run: 74, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 37
Outstanding JIRA for OASIS changes are:
POL_3020_TestCase - TUSCANY-3371
POL_4028_TestCase - TUSCANY-3380
I have local changes for some of these
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Here is what I see for the java-ci otests...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_10008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_10006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_9005_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_10009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_10005_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_0000_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_2002_TestCase)
Tests run: 83, Failures: 12, Errors: 0, Skipped: 41
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Made a start on fixes for the policy otests (as they stand at the
> moment at least). To put a stake in the ground, this is what I see....
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.POL_9015_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4028_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9017_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_5001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_0001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9018_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4027_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_3020_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_11001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_3018_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4012_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 77, Failures: 19, Errors: 0, Skipped: 38
>
> Simon
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Made a start on fixes for the policy otests (as they stand at the
moment at least). To put a stake in the ground, this is what I see....
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.POL_9015_TestCase)
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4028_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_5001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_0001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9018_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4027_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3020_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_11001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3018_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4012_TestCase)
Tests run: 77, Failures: 19, Errors: 0, Skipped: 38
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
Mike, I'll try your settings and see if I can track down the error.
Kelvin.
2009/11/10 Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>:
> kelvin goodson wrote:
>>
>> I've finally found out what my PermGen problem is being caused by.
>> When developing the oasis tests runtime bridge some months back I put
>> OASIS_TESTENV_RUNTIME_BRIDGE_CLASS=client.TuscanyRuntimeBridge into my
>> environment and then forgot about it. So, that code having moved on in
>> my absence, it turns out that I have been using the OSGi variant of
>> the bridge recently, which exhibits this PermGen leak behaviour. I
>> haven't resolved where the leak in that code, but I can now get nearly
>> all the tests running.
>>
>> Kelvin.
>>
> Folks,
>
> I've experienced the same memory leak when running with the test client
> using OSGi.
>
> I got the complete Assembly test suite to run using VM arguments:
>
> -Xmx756m -Xms756m -XX:MaxPermSize=600m
>
>
> But it would be good to track down this memory leak and fix it.
>
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
kelvin goodson wrote:
> I've finally found out what my PermGen problem is being caused by.
> When developing the oasis tests runtime bridge some months back I put
> OASIS_TESTENV_RUNTIME_BRIDGE_CLASS=client.TuscanyRuntimeBridge into my
> environment and then forgot about it. So, that code having moved on in
> my absence, it turns out that I have been using the OSGi variant of
> the bridge recently, which exhibits this PermGen leak behaviour. I
> haven't resolved where the leak in that code, but I can now get nearly
> all the tests running.
>
> Kelvin.
>
Folks,
I've experienced the same memory leak when running with the test client using OSGi.
I got the complete Assembly test suite to run using VM arguments:
-Xmx756m -Xms756m -XX:MaxPermSize=600m
But it would be good to track down this memory leak and fix it.
Yours, Mike.
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
I've finally found out what my PermGen problem is being caused by.
When developing the oasis tests runtime bridge some months back I put
OASIS_TESTENV_RUNTIME_BRIDGE_CLASS=client.TuscanyRuntimeBridge into my
environment and then forgot about it. So, that code having moved on in
my absence, it turns out that I have been using the OSGi variant of
the bridge recently, which exhibits this PermGen leak behaviour. I
haven't resolved where the leak in that code, but I can now get nearly
all the tests running.
Kelvin.
2009/11/9 kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>:
> thanks Simon - I'll have a go at that
>
> 2009/11/9 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
>> No idea why you are seeing it and I'm not. Another thing we could do
>> is actually debug the perm gen failure and see what's causing it in
>> your environment.
>>
>> Run up jconsole while the tests are running and watch the graphs rise.
>>
>> Assuming you just see perm gen increasing until it fails you can get a
>> heap dump with
>>
>> jmap -dump:file=app.bin ProcessNumber
>>
>> And you can look inside it with
>>
>> jhat -J-Xmx512m app.bin
>>
>> Point you browser at http://localhost:7000/
>>
>> There's a lot of info in there so if you do go down this route let me
>> know and I can point out what to look for.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
ant elder wrote:
> Fixed the last error message and now all the assembly tests are
> passing! I've got just one local fix, which is for OASIS issue in
> TUSCANY-3367
>
> ...ant
>
Folks,
I too am getting a clean run with the complete set of OASIS Assembly testcases and the latest
revision of Tuscany.
All the updates required at the OASIS end are checked in and available, including the latest Tuscany
error message file and the latest Tuscany client bridge code.
Yours, Mike.
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Fixed the last error message and now all the assembly tests are
passing! I've got just one local fix, which is for OASIS issue in
TUSCANY-3367
...ant
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The issue on 12007 required a fix in the Tuscany code and now been fixed at
> revision 834397.
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:45 PM, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> thanks Simon - I'll have a go at that
>>
>> 2009/11/9 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
>> > No idea why you are seeing it and I'm not. Another thing we could do
>> > is actually debug the perm gen failure and see what's causing it in
>> > your environment.
>> >
>> > Run up jconsole while the tests are running and watch the graphs rise.
>> >
>> > Assuming you just see perm gen increasing until it fails you can get a
>> > heap dump with
>> >
>> > jmap -dump:file=app.bin ProcessNumber
>> >
>> > And you can look inside it with
>> >
>> > jhat -J-Xmx512m app.bin
>> >
>> > Point you browser at http://localhost:7000/
>> >
>> > There's a lot of info in there so if you do go down this route let me
>> > know and I can point out what to look for.
>> >
>> > Simon
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
The issue on 12007 required a fix in the Tuscany code and now been fixed at
revision 834397.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:45 PM, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>wrote:
> thanks Simon - I'll have a go at that
>
> 2009/11/9 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
> > No idea why you are seeing it and I'm not. Another thing we could do
> > is actually debug the perm gen failure and see what's causing it in
> > your environment.
> >
> > Run up jconsole while the tests are running and watch the graphs rise.
> >
> > Assuming you just see perm gen increasing until it fails you can get a
> > heap dump with
> >
> > jmap -dump:file=app.bin ProcessNumber
> >
> > And you can look inside it with
> >
> > jhat -J-Xmx512m app.bin
> >
> > Point you browser at http://localhost:7000/
> >
> > There's a lot of info in there so if you do go down this route let me
> > know and I can point out what to look for.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
thanks Simon - I'll have a go at that
2009/11/9 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
> No idea why you are seeing it and I'm not. Another thing we could do
> is actually debug the perm gen failure and see what's causing it in
> your environment.
>
> Run up jconsole while the tests are running and watch the graphs rise.
>
> Assuming you just see perm gen increasing until it fails you can get a
> heap dump with
>
> jmap -dump:file=app.bin ProcessNumber
>
> And you can look inside it with
>
> jhat -J-Xmx512m app.bin
>
> Point you browser at http://localhost:7000/
>
> There's a lot of info in there so if you do go down this route let me
> know and I can point out what to look for.
>
> Simon
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
No idea why you are seeing it and I'm not. Another thing we could do
is actually debug the perm gen failure and see what's causing it in
your environment.
Run up jconsole while the tests are running and watch the graphs rise.
Assuming you just see perm gen increasing until it fails you can get a
heap dump with
jmap -dump:file=app.bin ProcessNumber
And you can look inside it with
jhat -J-Xmx512m app.bin
Point you browser at http://localhost:7000/
There's a lot of info in there so if you do go down this route let me
know and I can point out what to look for.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
Hmmm, I still get the same PermGen failures after about 12 tests with
exactly the same as your Java/maven/environment vars Simon ---- I have
3GB Ram and 4GB max paging space.
Kelvin.
2009/11/9 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
> so the only difference now is Maven (I'm on 2.1.0).
>
> Simon
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Mike's been hard at work so I just ran the assembly test suite and got
the following...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) - am hoping Mike is looking at it
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) - Ram is looking
Tests run: 123, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Looking good!
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
so the only difference now is Maven (I'm on 2.1.0).
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
I'm on Sun JDK 6 update 7 (was on update 11 but reverted to try to fix
this issue)
and Maven 2.0.9
thanks
Kelvin.
2009/11/9 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have now tried everyone's MAVEN_OPTS settings; thanks for posting
>> them, but I still have the issue. I guess I'll just have to keep
>> digging. :(
>>
>> Kelvin.
>
> Hi Kelvin
>
> What Java and Maven versions are you on?
>
> Simon
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have now tried everyone's MAVEN_OPTS settings; thanks for posting
> them, but I still have the issue. I guess I'll just have to keep
> digging. :(
>
> Kelvin.
Hi Kelvin
What Java and Maven versions are you on?
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
I have now tried everyone's MAVEN_OPTS settings; thanks for posting
them, but I still have the issue. I guess I'll just have to keep
digging. :(
Kelvin.
2009/11/6 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
> I have yet another slightly different combination.
>
> MAVEN_OPTS=-Xmx1024m -Xms1024m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m
>
> But like Ant am on Maven 2.1.0
>
> Simon
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
I have yet another slightly different combination.
MAVEN_OPTS=-Xmx1024m -Xms1024m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m
But like Ant am on Maven 2.1.0
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:33 PM, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking good!
>
> However, I'm struggling to replicate that as I'm getting the old
> PermGen out of memory errors after a few tests (see below).
> I'm using Sun JDK 6 update 7 and I have MAVEN_OPTS set to -Xmx1024m
> -Xms512m -XX:MaxPermSize=256m (and have tried a variety of other
> permutations)
>
> has anyone got any further tips I could try out -- I could than fold
> any insights I have back into the website FAQ
>
Have you got past that yet?
The settings I have is:
MAVEN_OPTS=-Xmx756m -Xms756m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m
I'm also using Maven version 2.1.0
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:33 AM, kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking good!
>
> However, I'm struggling to replicate that as I'm getting the old
> PermGen out of memory errors after a few tests (see below).
> I'm using Sun JDK 6 update 7 and I have MAVEN_OPTS set to -Xmx1024m
> -Xms512m -XX:MaxPermSize=256m (and have tried a variety of other
> permutations)
>
This is what I have :
export MAVEN_OPTS="-Xmx1024m -XX:MaxPermSize=384m"
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@gmail.com>.
Looking good!
However, I'm struggling to replicate that as I'm getting the old
PermGen out of memory errors after a few tests (see below).
I'm using Sun JDK 6 update 7 and I have MAVEN_OPTS set to -Xmx1024m
-Xms512m -XX:MaxPermSize=256m (and have tried a variety of other
permutations)
has anyone got any further tips I could try out -- I could than fold
any insights I have back into the website FAQ
=========================
Running client.ASM_6016_TestCase
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.812
sec <<< FAILURE!
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) Time elapsed: 0.812 sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: PermGen space
Running client.ASM_5030_TestCase
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.813
sec <<< FAILURE!
testDummy(client.ASM_5030_TestCase) Time elapsed: 0.797 sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: PermGen space
Running client.ASM_10003_TestCase
org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.SurefireExecutionException: PermGen
space; nested exception is java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: P
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: PermGen space
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ERROR] BUILD FAILURE
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] There are test failures.
Please refer to
C:\Dev\OasisTests\newlayout\tuscany-test-runner\target\surefire-reports
for the individual test results.
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] For more information, run Maven with the -e switch
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Total time: 18 minutes 6 seconds
[INFO] Finished at: Thu Nov 05 13:28:37 GMT 2009
[INFO] Final Memory: 50M/1016M
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
C:\Dev\OasisTests\newlayout>
Kelvin.
2009/11/5 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
> This is what I see now...
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 126, Failures: 14, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> 5023 is done (but I can't check in as svn id down). I believe 9999 and
> 8017 are done. If looks like Mike has fixed the OASIS side for 12004,
> 12003, which, from ant's recent post, leaves....
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) Policy, should be able to get working now?
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase) Ant looking
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3334
> testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase) Simon looking
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3336
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) Ram looking
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3360
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
>
> We're into single figures!
>
> Simon
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Just be clear for those reading this. While, in my previous post, I'm
saying that we only have 9 failures left to fix in the assembly otests
this is based on local fixes we have made to the tests themselves.
These fixes are not all documented in the list I posted. Anyone
checking out the code fresh will see many more failures. Some of us
are running with patches [1] to the test cases, see [2][3][4], which
resolve the majority of failures.
Regards
Simon
[1] http://people.apache.org/~slaws/tuscany/otest-diff.patch
[2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200910/msg00045.html
[3] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200910/msg00044.html
[4] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200910/msg00018.html
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
ASM_12008_TestCase is fixed in OASIS and the Tuscany JIRA is closed
I am investigating ASM_12011 and ASM_12012
Yours, Mike.
Simon Laws wrote:
> This is what I see now...
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 126, Failures: 14, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> 5023 is done (but I can't check in as svn id down). I believe 9999 and
> 8017 are done. If looks like Mike has fixed the OASIS side for 12004,
> 12003, which, from ant's recent post, leaves....
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) Policy, should be able to get working now?
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase) Ant looking
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3334
> testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase) Simon looking
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3336
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) Ram looking
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3360
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
>
> We're into single figures!
>
> Simon
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
This is what I see now...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
Tests run: 126, Failures: 14, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
5023 is done (but I can't check in as svn id down). I believe 9999 and
8017 are done. If looks like Mike has fixed the OASIS side for 12004,
12003, which, from ant's recent post, leaves....
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) Policy, should be able to get working now?
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase) Ant looking
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3334
testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase) Simon looking
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3336
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) Ram looking
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3360
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
We're into single figures!
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
ASM_12007_TestCase looks correct and as a result, I believe that Tuscany has a fault
- looks like Tuscany does not resolve artifacts to specific contributions in the order in which
those contributions are referenced in the sca-contribution.xml file
Yours, Mike.
Ramkumar R wrote:
> Here is the update on 1200x series....
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3339 &
> TUSCANY-3338
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3340
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3362
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) - Needs investigation....
> currently working on this one.
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) - OASIS Issue TUSCANY-3360
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_12010_TestCase) - OASIS Issue TUSCANY-3357
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) – Works as expected... Changes
> required in tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-errors.properties
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) – Works as expected
>
>
> I will make the changes required in
> tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-errors.properties file, in the new svn location.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:57 PM, ant elder <antelder@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:15 PM, ant elder <antelder@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Simon Laws
> <simonslaws@googlemail.com <ma...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3337 - a tuscany
> problem
> >
> >>
> >> As I say I'm looking at 5023 and will post here if I move onto
> another one.
> >>
> >
> > I'll look at 8017
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> I've fixed Tuscany for 8017. I'll take a look at the ASM_9999 one now
> but IIRC that is something like a temp test that shouldn't be in the
> test suite.
>
> ...ant
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Here is the update on 1200x series....
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3339 &
TUSCANY-3338
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3340
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3362
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) - Needs investigation.... currently
working on this one.
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) - OASIS Issue TUSCANY-3360
testDummy(client.ASM_12010_TestCase) - OASIS Issue TUSCANY-3357
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) – Works as expected... Changes
required in tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-errors.properties
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) – Works as expected
I will make the changes required in
tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-errors.properties file, in the new svn location.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:57 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:15 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3337 - a tuscany problem
> >
> >>
> >> As I say I'm looking at 5023 and will post here if I move onto another
> one.
> >>
> >
> > I'll look at 8017
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> I've fixed Tuscany for 8017. I'll take a look at the ASM_9999 one now
> but IIRC that is something like a temp test that shouldn't be in the
> test suite.
>
> ...ant
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Looks accurate to me. I don't have any local fixes.
Update from me. I've fixed Tuscany so that 5023 passes but the change
was quite fundamental re. the way that reference promotion is handled
so it's having an impact on other tests which I'm looking at before
checking in.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
ant elder wrote:
> This is the status of the Assmebly tests for me this morning, down to
> 12 fails, I've added comments next to them based Simons earlier post
> and on what people have recently said on this thread:
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase) Simon looking
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) Policy, should be able to get working now?
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase) Policy, should be able to get working now?
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3334
> testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3336
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) Fails for me but works for Simon?
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3339 & TUSCANY-3338
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3340
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) Ram looking
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3360
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
>
> For 8011, 12011, 12012 are there other local fixes people have that i need?
>
> ...ant
>
Folks,
All the ASM_120xx testcases are passing now.
There are fixes from the OASIS SVN to fetch - and there are a couple of changes in the
tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-errors.properties to ensure get merged.
Yours, Mike.
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
ant elder wrote:
> This is the status of the Assmebly tests for me this morning, down to
> 12 fails, I've added comments next to them based Simons earlier post
> and on what people have recently said on this thread:
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase) Simon looking
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) Policy, should be able to get working now?
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase) Policy, should be able to get working now?
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3334
> testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3336
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) Fails for me but works for Simon?
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3339 & TUSCANY-3338
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3340
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) Ram looking
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3360
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
>
> For 8011, 12011, 12012 are there other local fixes people have that i need?
>
> ...ant
>
Folks,
The 80xx testcases are fixed in OASIS now.
8001 and 8010 run correctly.
8011 fails on Tuscany as Tuscany does not notice that the callback interface of a component
reference does not match the callback interface of the composite implementation used by the component.
Yours, Mike.
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
This is the status of the Assmebly tests for me this morning, down to
12 fails, I've added comments next to them based Simons earlier post
and on what people have recently said on this thread:
testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase) Simon looking
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) Policy, should be able to get working now?
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase) Policy, should be able to get working now?
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3334
testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3336
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) Fails for me but works for Simon?
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3339 & TUSCANY-3338
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3340
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) Ram looking
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) OASIS issue TUSCANY-3360
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) Fails for me but passes for Ram?
For 8011, 12011, 12012 are there other local fixes people have that i need?
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
ant elder wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:15 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3337 - a tuscany problem
>>> As I say I'm looking at 5023 and will post here if I move onto another one.
>>>
>> I'll look at 8017
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> I've fixed Tuscany for 8017. I'll take a look at the ASM_9999 one now
> but IIRC that is something like a temp test that shouldn't be in the
> test suite.
>
> ...ant
>
Ant,
I agree - ASM_9999 was put there for use when initially building the test suite and somehow got into
the SVN when it shouldn't have - I'll delete it.
Yours, Mike.
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:15 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3337 - a tuscany problem
>
>>
>> As I say I'm looking at 5023 and will post here if I move onto another one.
>>
>
> I'll look at 8017
>
> ...ant
>
I've fixed Tuscany for 8017. I'll take a look at the ASM_9999 one now
but IIRC that is something like a temp test that shouldn't be in the
test suite.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3337 - a tuscany problem
>
> As I say I'm looking at 5023 and will post here if I move onto another one.
>
I'll look at 8017
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I took a look at the 80xx series, and below is a summary of the issues :
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3334
> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase) -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3323
> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3335
> testDummy(client.ASM_8007_TestCase) -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3355
> testDummy(client.ASM_8008_TestCase) -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3355
> testDummy(client.ASM_8009_TestCase) -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3355
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3336
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase) -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3337 (tuscany)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase) -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3355
>
> Except for ASM_8017 which has TUSCANY-3337 opened for it, most of the
> failures are related to required fixes on the OASIS side.
>
Yes most are OASIS issues, ASM_8011 does have an OASIS issue but even
with that fixed it looks like it still fails with a Tuscany bug so its
8011 and 8017 that need Tuscany fixes done.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
ASM_6033 is still failing for me, before i try to debug it could you
check again if theres not some other local change to the oasis code
thats needed to get it to work? Could anyone else try it to see if it
passes for them?
...ant
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ASM_6033 is commented out in the sca-assembly/pom.xml. Before the OASIS
> folks fix that, I had to run "mvn" manually under that module to produce the
> zip contribution so that I can run the test case.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:43 PM
> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>
>> I'm still getting a fail running ASM_6033_TestCase, is there some
>> OASIS local fix you've got to get that passing?
>>
>> I've now done the three remaining 500x ones so that leaves only these
>> remaining:
>>
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have fixed the error messages for 6001, 6031, 6032, and 6033. They are
>>> passing now.
>>>
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>>>
>>> ASM_6016 might need some discussions with the spec group.
>>>
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Raymond
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:54 AM
>>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> SCA-J CAA tests:
>>>>>
>>>>> Failed tests:
>>>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>>>> Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
>>>>>
>>>>> Woot!
>>>>>
>>>>> (the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
>>>>> things from the OASIS test config)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SCA-J CAA tests are done but there's still fails remaining on the
>>>> assembly tests, here's the list:
>>>>
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>>>>
>>>> I'll go look at some starting at the top with 5007, 5023, and 5033. We
>>>> need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
>>>> this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
This is what I'm seeing now...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12010_TestCase)
Tests run: 126, Failures: 16, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
I'm assuming Ram is handling the 12xxx ones which leaves....
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase) - need to work out how to omit this
testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase) - I'm taking a look at this.
Already raised and OASIS issue
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-186
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) - last time I looked at this it
was waiting for policy matching (TUSCANY-3331) so may be able to get
this to work now
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase) - again policy (TUSCANY-3333 &
TUSCANY-3332) so may be able to make progress now
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3334 but should work now?
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3336
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3337 - a tuscany problem
testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase) - not looked at this
As I say I'm looking at 5023 and will post here if I move onto another one.
Regards
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ant,
>
> Here is the latest status on 1200x series...
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3339 &
> TUSCANY-3338
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3340
> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) - passes for me
>
> 12005 to 12011 needs a fix in Tuscany code for TUSCANY-3326. I am working on
> it to fix the same.... should be done by tomorrow.
>
I saw you done a lot of commits for fixes on these, what is the status
of them now, are they passing for you? I'm still seeing the following
fails for the 1200x ones:
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12010_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
I took a look at the 80xx series, and below is a summary of the issues :
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3334
testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase) -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3323
testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3335
testDummy(client.ASM_8007_TestCase) -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3355
testDummy(client.ASM_8008_TestCase) -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3355
testDummy(client.ASM_8009_TestCase) -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3355
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3336
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase) -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3337 (tuscany)
testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase) -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3355
Except for ASM_8017 which has TUSCANY-3337 opened for it, most of the
failures are related to required fixes on the OASIS side.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ant,
>
> Here is the latest status on 1200x series...
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3339 &
> TUSCANY-3338
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3340
> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) - passes for me
>
> 12005 to 12011 needs a fix in Tuscany code for TUSCANY-3326. I am working on
> it to fix the same.... should be done by tomorrow.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:47 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've fixed 13004, and found oasis issues with the testcase for the
>> 80xx ones which I've raised JIRAs for, so that now just leaves the
>> 120xx ones, I know you were looking at these Ram - which ones haven't
>> you looked at yet so i can help?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > ASM_6033 is commented out in the sca-assembly/pom.xml. Before the OASIS
>> > folks fix that, I had to run "mvn" manually under that module to produce
>> > the
>> > zip contribution so that I can run the test case.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Raymond
>> > --------------------------------------------------
>> > From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:43 PM
>> > To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>> > Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>> >
>> >> I'm still getting a fail running ASM_6033_TestCase, is there some
>> >> OASIS local fix you've got to get that passing?
>> >>
>> >> I've now done the three remaining 500x ones so that leaves only these
>> >> remaining:
>> >>
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>> >> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>> >>
>> >> ...ant
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have fixed the error messages for 6001, 6031, 6032, and 6033. They
>> >>> are
>> >>> passing now.
>> >>>
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>> >>>
>> >>> ASM_6016 might need some discussions with the spec group.
>> >>>
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Raymond
>> >>> --------------------------------------------------
>> >>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>> >>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:54 AM
>> >>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>> >>> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> SCA-J CAA tests:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Failed tests:
>> >>>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>> >>>>> Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Woot!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
>> >>>>> things from the OASIS test config)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ...ant
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The SCA-J CAA tests are done but there's still fails remaining on the
>> >>>> assembly tests, here's the list:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'll go look at some starting at the top with 5007, 5023, and 5033.
>> >>>> We
>> >>>> need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
>> >>>> this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ...ant
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ant,
Here is the latest status on 1200x series...
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3339 &
TUSCANY-3338
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3340
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) - TUSCANY-3326
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) - passes for me
12005 to 12011 needs a fix in Tuscany code for TUSCANY-3326. I am working on
it to fix the same.... should be done by tomorrow.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:47 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've fixed 13004, and found oasis issues with the testcase for the
> 80xx ones which I've raised JIRAs for, so that now just leaves the
> 120xx ones, I know you were looking at these Ram - which ones haven't
> you looked at yet so i can help?
>
> ...ant
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ASM_6033 is commented out in the sca-assembly/pom.xml. Before the OASIS
> > folks fix that, I had to run "mvn" manually under that module to produce
> the
> > zip contribution so that I can run the test case.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Raymond
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:43 PM
> > To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
> >
> >> I'm still getting a fail running ASM_6033_TestCase, is there some
> >> OASIS local fix you've got to get that passing?
> >>
> >> I've now done the three remaining 500x ones so that leaves only these
> >> remaining:
> >>
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
> >> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
> >>
> >> ...ant
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I have fixed the error messages for 6001, 6031, 6032, and 6033. They
> are
> >>> passing now.
> >>>
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
> >>>
> >>> ASM_6016 might need some discussions with the spec group.
> >>>
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Raymond
> >>> --------------------------------------------------
> >>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
> >>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:54 AM
> >>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SCA-J CAA tests:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Failed tests:
> >>>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> >>>>> Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Woot!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
> >>>>> things from the OASIS test config)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...ant
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The SCA-J CAA tests are done but there's still fails remaining on the
> >>>> assembly tests, here's the list:
> >>>>
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
> >>>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll go look at some starting at the top with 5007, 5023, and 5033. We
> >>>> need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
> >>>> this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
> >>>>
> >>>> ...ant
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
I've fixed 13004, and found oasis issues with the testcase for the
80xx ones which I've raised JIRAs for, so that now just leaves the
120xx ones, I know you were looking at these Ram - which ones haven't
you looked at yet so i can help?
...ant
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ASM_6033 is commented out in the sca-assembly/pom.xml. Before the OASIS
> folks fix that, I had to run "mvn" manually under that module to produce the
> zip contribution so that I can run the test case.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:43 PM
> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>
>> I'm still getting a fail running ASM_6033_TestCase, is there some
>> OASIS local fix you've got to get that passing?
>>
>> I've now done the three remaining 500x ones so that leaves only these
>> remaining:
>>
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have fixed the error messages for 6001, 6031, 6032, and 6033. They are
>>> passing now.
>>>
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>>>
>>> ASM_6016 might need some discussions with the spec group.
>>>
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Raymond
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:54 AM
>>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> SCA-J CAA tests:
>>>>>
>>>>> Failed tests:
>>>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>>>> Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
>>>>>
>>>>> Woot!
>>>>>
>>>>> (the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
>>>>> things from the OASIS test config)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SCA-J CAA tests are done but there's still fails remaining on the
>>>> assembly tests, here's the list:
>>>>
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>>>>
>>>> I'll go look at some starting at the top with 5007, 5023, and 5033. We
>>>> need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
>>>> this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
ASM_6033 is commented out in the sca-assembly/pom.xml. Before the OASIS
folks fix that, I had to run "mvn" manually under that module to produce the
zip contribution so that I can run the test case.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:43 PM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
> I'm still getting a fail running ASM_6033_TestCase, is there some
> OASIS local fix you've got to get that passing?
>
> I've now done the three remaining 500x ones so that leaves only these
> remaining:
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>
> ...ant
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have fixed the error messages for 6001, 6031, 6032, and 6033. They are
>> passing now.
>>
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>>
>> ASM_6016 might need some discussions with the spec group.
>>
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:54 AM
>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SCA-J CAA tests:
>>>>
>>>> Failed tests:
>>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>>> Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
>>>>
>>>> Woot!
>>>>
>>>> (the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
>>>> things from the OASIS test config)
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>
>>> The SCA-J CAA tests are done but there's still fails remaining on the
>>> assembly tests, here's the list:
>>>
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>>>
>>> I'll go look at some starting at the top with 5007, 5023, and 5033. We
>>> need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
>>> this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>
>>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
Actually it looks like ASM_9999_TestCase isnt a real test so thats one
less to look at.
...ant
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm still getting a fail running ASM_6033_TestCase, is there some
> OASIS local fix you've got to get that passing?
>
> I've now done the three remaining 500x ones so that leaves only these remaining:
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>
> ...ant
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have fixed the error messages for 6001, 6031, 6032, and 6033. They are
>> passing now.
>>
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>>
>> ASM_6016 might need some discussions with the spec group.
>>
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:54 AM
>> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SCA-J CAA tests:
>>>>
>>>> Failed tests:
>>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>>> Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
>>>>
>>>> Woot!
>>>>
>>>> (the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
>>>> things from the OASIS test config)
>>>>
>>>> ...ant
>>>>
>>>
>>> The SCA-J CAA tests are done but there's still fails remaining on the
>>> assembly tests, here's the list:
>>>
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>>>
>>> I'll go look at some starting at the top with 5007, 5023, and 5033. We
>>> need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
>>> this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>
>>
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
I'm still getting a fail running ASM_6033_TestCase, is there some
OASIS local fix you've got to get that passing?
I've now done the three remaining 500x ones so that leaves only these remaining:
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
...ant
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have fixed the error messages for 6001, 6031, 6032, and 6033. They are
> passing now.
>
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>
> ASM_6016 might need some discussions with the spec group.
>
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:54 AM
> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> SCA-J CAA tests:
>>>
>>> Failed tests:
>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>> Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
>>>
>>> Woot!
>>>
>>> (the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
>>> things from the OASIS test config)
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> The SCA-J CAA tests are done but there's still fails remaining on the
>> assembly tests, here's the list:
>>
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>>
>> I'll go look at some starting at the top with 5007, 5023, and 5033. We
>> need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
>> this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
>>
>> ...ant
>
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I have fixed the error messages for 6001, 6031, 6032, and 6033. They are
passing now.
> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
ASM_6016 might need some discussions with the spec group.
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:54 AM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> SCA-J CAA tests:
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>> Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
>>
>> Woot!
>>
>> (the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
>> things from the OASIS test config)
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> The SCA-J CAA tests are done but there's still fails remaining on the
> assembly tests, here's the list:
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>
> I'll go look at some starting at the top with 5007, 5023, and 5033. We
> need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
> this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
>
> ...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ant,
I will start looking from 12000 and 13000 series and take over other ones
as I complete.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:24 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> > SCA-J CAA tests:
> >
> > Failed tests:
> > testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> > Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
> >
> > Woot!
> >
> > (the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
> > things from the OASIS test config)
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> The SCA-J CAA tests are done but there's still fails remaining on the
> assembly tests, here's the list:
>
> testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>
> I'll go look at some starting at the top with 5007, 5023, and 5033. We
> need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
> this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
>
> ...ant
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:54 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> We
> need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
> this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
>
Given the response i think it may be safe to assume we're not going to
get all the assembly tests done in the next few days so its probably
worth starting on M4. Any assembly test fixes can easily be merged in
to M4 as they're done so please do keep on with the fixing.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> SCA-J CAA tests:
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
>
> Woot!
>
> (the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
> things from the OASIS test config)
>
> ...ant
>
The SCA-J CAA tests are done but there's still fails remaining on the
assembly tests, here's the list:
testDummy(client.ASM_5007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
I'll go look at some starting at the top with 5007, 5023, and 5033. We
need to decide if we still want to hold the M4 release for finishing
this, will anyone else be helping on these this week?
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
SCA-J CAA tests:
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
Tests run: 157, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
Woot!
(the BaseJAXWSTestCase fail and 78 skipped are just ignorable setup
things from the OASIS test config)
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok I'm down to just 4 fails now:
>>>>
>>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
>>>>
>>>> JCA_4004 is a known issue with the OASIS test case, the other three
>>>> are related to the JAX-WS async APIs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have committed some changes for the JAX-WS ones, and trying to close
>>> these remaining JAX-WS tests asap (possibly today or tomorrow)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Luciano Resende
>>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
>>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>
>> If you can commit what you have before you go today and post where
>> you're up to I'd be happy to help finish them tomorrow.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> I could use some help with JCA_11008_TestCase.
>
Ok I'm on it.
....ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok I'm down to just 4 fails now:
>>>
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
>>>
>>> JCA_4004 is a known issue with the OASIS test case, the other three
>>> are related to the JAX-WS async APIs.
>>>
>>
>> I have committed some changes for the JAX-WS ones, and trying to close
>> these remaining JAX-WS tests asap (possibly today or tomorrow)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Luciano Resende
>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>>
>
> If you can commit what you have before you go today and post where
> you're up to I'd be happy to help finish them tomorrow.
>
> ...ant
>
I could use some help with JCA_11008_TestCase.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Ok I'm down to just 4 fails now:
>>
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
>>
>> JCA_4004 is a known issue with the OASIS test case, the other three
>> are related to the JAX-WS async APIs.
>>
>
> I have committed some changes for the JAX-WS ones, and trying to close
> these remaining JAX-WS tests asap (possibly today or tomorrow)
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
If you can commit what you have before you go today and post where
you're up to I'd be happy to help finish them tomorrow.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Currently I get the following...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.ASM_13006_TestCase)
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13003_TestCase)
Tests run: 126, Failures: 27, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
So the 1300x are now failing because the validation errors are again
not coming out properly. I'm just looking at it but if someone can put
their finger on it immediately that would save some time.
As an aside, we are in a pretty tricky position with these tests as
firstly not all of them pass yet and secondly not all of the changes
we need are not in the OASIS code base. However the repeated
regression makes life really difficult so if you can give the tests a
spin (you'll need the diff [1]) and repeat the exercise when you check
in (takes 3 mins to run them) to make sure the number of failures
hasn't got bigger between the two, that would be great.
Simon
[1] http://people.apache.org/~slaws/tuscany/otest-diff.patch
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:03 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Ok I'm down to just 4 fails now:
>
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
>
> JCA_4004 is a known issue with the OASIS test case, the other three
> are related to the JAX-WS async APIs.
>
I have committed some changes for the JAX-WS ones, and trying to close
these remaining JAX-WS tests asap (possibly today or tomorrow)
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:51 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> FYI. Output from my latest run...
>>>>
>>>> Failed tests:
>>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>>>
>>>> Tests run: 126, Failures: 19, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even after applying [1], I'm still getting the following errors in the
>>> java tests..
>>>
>>> Failed tests:
>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8002_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8006_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8003_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10050_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8004_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8010_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_2004_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10051_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4005_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8008_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8001_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8009_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4003_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
>>>
>>> Could we maintain a README file, or a wiki page, with the necessary
>>> steps (e.g patches, workarounds) to get things progressing, so we
>>> don't spend time trying to fix unnecessary issues.
>>>
>>> [1] http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/sca-java-caa.diff
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Some better results :
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10050_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_2004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10051_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
>>
>>
>
> I've some of those failing but not all of them, I did have it down to
> just three fails at one point yesterday but now this morning its shot
> up to 15 fails :(.
>
> (note we dont need to apply that diff any more as all our fixes have
> been applied to the OASIS SVN now)
>
> ...ant
>
Ok I'm down to just 4 fails now:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
JCA_4004 is a known issue with the OASIS test case, the other three
are related to the JAX-WS async APIs.
I've also added a Hudson job to buil dthe required Tuscany modules and
run the SCA-J CAA tests -
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/All/job/Tuscany-SCA-J-CAA/
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> FYI. Output from my latest run...
>>>
>>> Failed tests:
>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>>
>>> Tests run: 126, Failures: 19, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> Even after applying [1], I'm still getting the following errors in the
>> java tests..
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8002_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8006_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10050_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8010_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_2004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10051_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4005_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8009_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
>>
>> Could we maintain a README file, or a wiki page, with the necessary
>> steps (e.g patches, workarounds) to get things progressing, so we
>> don't spend time trying to fix unnecessary issues.
>>
>> [1] http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/sca-java-caa.diff
>>
>>
>
> Some better results :
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10050_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_2004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10051_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
>
>
I've some of those failing but not all of them, I did have it down to
just three fails at one point yesterday but now this morning its shot
up to 15 fails :(.
(note we dont need to apply that diff any more as all our fixes have
been applied to the OASIS SVN now)
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> FYI. Output from my latest run...
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 126, Failures: 19, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> Even after applying [1], I'm still getting the following errors in the
> java tests..
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10050_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_2004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10051_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
>
> Could we maintain a README file, or a wiki page, with the necessary
> steps (e.g patches, workarounds) to get things progressing, so we
> don't spend time trying to fix unnecessary issues.
>
> [1] http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/sca-java-caa.diff
>
>
Some better results :
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10050_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_2004_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10051_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> FYI. Output from my latest run...
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 126, Failures: 19, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> Simon
>
Even after applying [1], I'm still getting the following errors in the
java tests..
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8002_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10050_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8004_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_2004_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10051_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4005_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_4004_TestCase)
Could we maintain a README file, or a wiki page, with the necessary
steps (e.g patches, workarounds) to get things progressing, so we
don't spend time trying to fix unnecessary issues.
[1] http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/sca-java-caa.diff
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
FYI. Output from my latest run...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
Tests run: 126, Failures: 19, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Good news indeed. Don't understand the comment about the monitor. You
looking at that or is it outstanding? Just building now so can look
shortly if needed.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Down to just three fails in the SCA-J CAA tests now after the policy
updates from Raymond, woohoo. That does have one regression and there
are a number of regressions in the assembly tests today as the schema
validation tests aren't picking up the correct Monitor instance so
don't find the schema validation problems.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the summary.
>
> Can we get rid of "current" and move the content of "newlayout" directly
> under "otest" now?
+1
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> it takes 45 minutes to run the Java CAA tests?
>
> Simon
>
When also including a full Tuscany build yes. The point of the
externals experiment is to enable build just the subset of Tuscany
modules actually used by the CAA test suite (thats the Tuscany core
modules with implementation.java and binding.ws support).
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
it takes 45 minutes to run the Java CAA tests?
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
As an experiment to help with the otests and build modularization
discussions i've created an svn folder using SVN externals that
contains just whats needed to build and run the SCA-J CAA test suite.
To try it svn checkout
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sandbox/scajcaa, that brings
in all the required Tuscany and OASIS modules. Running it takes about
5 minutes on my machine compared with about 45 minutes to run the
tests with the regular Tuscany trunk checkout.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Thanks for the update Ant.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
b.t.w the diff I referenced doesn't include chages to the test case
configuration file so you will get a few more issues than this even
with the diff. They are though test specific.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Ok, some of the regressions are to do with an otest Java package name
and one is to do with recent monitor changes (the fix to which I'm
unable to check in atm for some reason). Here's the list now...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3328
testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase) - regression - still looking
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) - policy TUSCANY-3331
testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase) - policy TUSCANY-3331
testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase) - policy TUSCANY-3331
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase) - multiplicity validation TUSCANY-3333
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3334
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3336
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase) - callback matching TUSCANY-3337
testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)- needs looking at
testDummy(client.ASM_10001_TestCase) - abosolute path in results TUSCANY-3343
testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase) - abosolute path in results TUSCANY-3343
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) - schemaLocation errorreporting
TUSCANY-3339
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3340
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3190
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) - import location matching TUSCANY-3326
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) - import processing TUSCANY-3341
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) - import processing TUSCANY-3341
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) - names of xsd file missing TUSCANY-3344
testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase) - getting mixed up with
ASM-4008 TUSCANY-3345
Tests run: 126, Failures: 21, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
So about 10 Tuscany issues to look at. All help much appreciated. The
diff of ASM otest changes I'm running with at the moment is here [1]
Regards
Simon
[1] http://people.apache.org/~slaws/tuscany/otest-diff.patch
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
This is my version...
testDummy(client.ASM_4002_TestCase) - regression
testDummy(client.ASM_4003_TestCase) - regression
testDummy(client.ASM_4004_TestCase) - regression
testDummy(client.ASM_5023_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3328
testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase) - regression
testDummy(client.ASM_6001_TestCase) - regression
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) - policy TUSCANY-3331
testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase) - policy TUSCANY-3331
testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase) - policy TUSCANY-3331
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase) - multiplicity validation TUSCANY-3333
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3334
testDummy(client.ASM_8010_TestCase) - regression
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3336
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase) - callback matching TUSCANY-3337
testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase) - ???
testDummy(client.ASM_10001_TestCase) - regression
testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase) - regression
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase) - schemaLocation error
reporting TUSCANY-3339
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3340
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase) - OASIS issue TUSCANY-3190
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) - import location matching TUSCANY-3326
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase) - import processing TUSCANY-3341
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase) - import processing TUSCANY-3341
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase) - regression
testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase) - regression
This is a bit odd given the number that fail now that worked a couple
of days back (seems to be something to do with adjustments to imports
in the tests I've had to make - looking now). Also there are some that
I know fail in eclipse for OASIS reasons at that did not appear in the
list from the maven run. Not sure what's up.
I agree that the policy ones are high on the list. Also the 120xx
failures are down to out import processing which needs close
examination.
I'm post back when I know what's going on with the regressions.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Now trying the Assembly tests on a clean checkout. There were a bunch
of tests missing from the OASIS sca-assembly pom.xml which i've raised
TUSCANY-3327 for, after that these are the ones i get that fail (the
comment after is based on the comments on the wiki page):
ASM_5007 SL fix
ASM_5026 T-3225
ASM_5033 fails for me but looks like could be due to other fixed issue
ASM_5034 OASIS issue
ASM_6001 fails for me
ASM_6016 Needs policy matching
ASM_6031 needs policy matching
ASM_6032 needs policy matching
ASM_6033 Message (wrong, and not great)
ASM_8001 not finding contribution
ASM_8004 known fix (and incorrect contribution name?)
ASM_8005 incorrect contribution name? and fix err msg
ASM_8011 known fix and jira
ASM_8017 question about test on wiki???
ASM_9999 no contribution found, not in oasis svn
ASM_10001 err msg comparison fails as variable string inside
ASM_10003 err msg comparison fails as variable string inside
ASM_12003 known issue t-3206
ASM_12004 known issue t-3207
ASM_12005 known issue t-3190
ASM_12007 known issue t-3190
ASM_12008 known issue t-3190
ASM_12010 known issue t-3190
ASM_12011 known issue t-3190
ASM_12012 err msg comparison fails as variable string inside
ASM_13004 fails for me but looks like could be due to other fixed issue
>From that it looks like the main ones remaining are: ASM_6001,
ASM_6033, ASM_8001, ASM_8005, ASM_9999, and the three that need policy
matching support (ASM_6016, ASM_6031, ASM_6032).
Does that match what others see?
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
More SCA-J CAA tests status - there's only 13 failures remaining, and all
the test erorr message are now updated. The failures are in 4 areas:
Pass by Value is not working properly - JCA_2010
Exceptions during component initialization - JCA_4003, JCA_4004, JCA_4005
Policy support - JCA_8001 thru JCA_8010
JAX-WS Annotation support - JCA_110008
I'm going to start looking at the 400x ones.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:53 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:28 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Cool. SCA-J CAA ones are down to 16 fails and 25 *'d ones.
>> >
>> > ...ant
>> >
>>
>> What steps are you using to run the tests and get these 16 fails ?
>>
>> After fixing couple of compilation failures as described in JIRAs,
>> here is what I'm trying :
>> mvn -Pscajcaa clean install
>>
>> And my results:
>> Tests run: 157, Failures: 54, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
>>
>>
> Until they're commited to the OASIS SVN you'll also need to apply the fixes
> in the recent Tuscany "OASIS Compliance - OASIS<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&pid=12310210&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&component=12313003>"
> JIRAs.
>
> ...ant
>
>
To make that a little easier i've put a diff with all the changes to apply
over the sca-java-caa folder at
http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/sca-java-caa.diff
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:28 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cool. SCA-J CAA ones are down to 16 fails and 25 *'d ones.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
> What steps are you using to run the tests and get these 16 fails ?
>
> After fixing couple of compilation failures as described in JIRAs,
> here is what I'm trying :
> mvn -Pscajcaa clean install
>
> And my results:
> Tests run: 157, Failures: 54, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
>
>
Until they're commited to the OASIS SVN you'll also need to apply the fixes
in the recent Tuscany "OASIS Compliance -
OASIS<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&pid=12310210&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&component=12313003>"
JIRAs.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:28 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cool. SCA-J CAA ones are down to 16 fails and 25 *'d ones.
>
> ...ant
>
What steps are you using to run the tests and get these 16 fails ?
After fixing couple of compilation failures as described in JIRAs,
here is what I'm trying :
mvn -Pscajcaa clean install
And my results:
Tests run: 157, Failures: 54, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Assembly status, as of just now...
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_10001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12009_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 126, Failures: 25, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> Pretty much got rid of the *'d tests.
>
> Simon
>
Cool. SCA-J CAA ones are down to 16 fails and 25 *'d ones.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Assembly status, as of just now...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_10001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6032_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12011_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6031_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_13004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_9999_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12012_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12010_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12009_TestCase)
Tests run: 126, Failures: 25, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Pretty much got rid of the *'d tests.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
>
> Can we get rid of "current" and move the content of "newlayout" directly
> under "otest" now?
>
I think we can get rid of current now. Was just keeping it around for reference.
We do need to move newlayout content but would rather leave it for
the next few days until we've got through the second pass through
assembly. Just don't want to upset progress at the moment.
Regards
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the summary.
Can we get rid of "current" and move the content of "newlayout" directly under "otest" now?
Thanks,
Raymond
From: ant elder
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:39 AM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: OASIS compliance test status
Here's the current state of the Assembly and SCA-J CAA tests:
To make it a bit easier to see whats going wrong I've just updated otests runners so that missing and incorrect error messages get logged to a file in the test runner target directory, and so that messages which start with an astrix don't fail the tests so its now easier to see the state by just looking in the tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-errors.properties files (ie anything starting with an * needs investigating).
Running all the tests gives:
Assembly Tests
Tests run: 136, Failures: 23, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
59 *'d messages
Java CAA Tests
Tests run: 157, Failures: 40, Errors: 0, Skipped: 78
39 *'d messages
So thats a total of 239 issues to fix (ie 23+59 +40+78+39), and at a guess of 30 minutes an issue that would take someone about a month!
If anyone wants to help the README in the top level otest folder has details on how to use the test suites - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/otest/newlayout/README
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
POJO_10009_TestCase fixed under revision 899865
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Yes of course but I have questions about the tests themselves.
>
> You see the reason why some of these tests have been passing is
> because we have not been doing policy matching. The fact that we are
> now doing some is showing up problems. I'd rather we fixed the
> problems than work around them.
>
> Simon
>
Agree, the workaround was a temporarily thing while we didn't have a fix yet.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Yes of course but I have questions about the tests themselves.
You see the reason why some of these tests have been passing is
because we have not been doing policy matching. The fact that we are
now doing some is showing up problems. I'd rather we fixed the
problems than work around them.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2010/1/15 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
>>> JCA_2005 fixed at revision: 899599
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> Great, we now have Assembly and Java CAA passing 100%
>>
>
> Looks like we have two regressions in Java CAA
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
>
> Tests that intent annotations are correctly merged when they appear at
> different levels in a Java interface class. PolicySet1 satisfies
> testIntent3 which is the only intent that should be applicable to the
> service after the intents in Service5Intents are normalized.
>
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
>
> Tests that policySet annotations are correctly merged when they appear
> at different levels in a Java interface class. PolicySet1 satisfies
> testIntent3 and PolicySet2 satisfies testIntent5.
>
> Could these be related to recent changes in Policy ?
>
I committed a workaround for this issue, mostly bypassing the current
matching algorithm, in revision #901549. This makes the JavaCAA
passing 100% again.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/1/15 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
>> JCA_2005 fixed at revision: 899599
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> Great, we now have Assembly and Java CAA passing 100%
>
Looks like we have two regressions in Java CAA
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
Tests that intent annotations are correctly merged when they appear at
different levels in a Java interface class. PolicySet1 satisfies
testIntent3 which is the only intent that should be applicable to the
service after the intents in Service5Intents are normalized.
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
Tests that policySet annotations are correctly merged when they appear
at different levels in a Java interface class. PolicySet1 satisfies
testIntent3 and PolicySet2 satisfies testIntent5.
Could these be related to recent changes in Policy ?
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
2010/1/15 Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>:
> JCA_2005 fixed at revision: 899599
>
> Simon
>
Great, we now have Assembly and Java CAA passing 100%
Java CI Failures:
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8008_TestCase)
Java Policy Failures: testDummy(client.POL_9015_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4028_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_5001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9018_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4027_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_11001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4012_TestCase)
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
JCA_2005 fixed at revision: 899599
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:59 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The namespace in the OASIS tests are fixed now for the Assembly, and
> Java CI and CAA tests. Assembly is running clean for me, there is one
> regression in the CAA test - JCA_2005 - looks like thats due to the
> recent endpoint matching code changes, and 5 fails in the CI tests:
> POJO_8012, POJO_8009, POJO_10009, POJO_8003, POJO_8008. I'll start
> looking at the POJO ones, feel free anyone to help fix these
>
> ...ant
>
The policy tests are updated now too, and the remaining policy test fails are:
testDummy(client.POL_9015_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4028_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_5001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9018_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4027_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_11001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4012_TestCase)
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
I'll take a look at JCA_2005
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
The namespace in the OASIS tests are fixed now for the Assembly, and
Java CI and CAA tests. Assembly is running clean for me, there is one
regression in the CAA test - JCA_2005 - looks like thats due to the
recent endpoint matching code changes, and 5 fails in the CI tests:
POJO_8012, POJO_8009, POJO_10009, POJO_8003, POJO_8008. I'll start
looking at the POJO ones, feel free anyone to help fix these
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
>
> Are you getting a clean build now? I'm seeing 50 or so assembly
> compliance tests failing due to some axis strangeness. For example,
>
> Running client.ASM_6011_TestCase
> Implementation language set to: _Java
> 08-Mar-2010 10:51:45 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeImpl start
> INFO: Starting node: http://tuscany.apache.org/sca/1.1/nodes/default0 domain: de
> fault
> 08-Mar-2010 10:51:45 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeFactoryImpl loadContri
> butions
> INFO: Loading contribution: file:/D:/sca-java-2.x/compliance-tests/assembly/targ
> et/oasis-contributions/General-1.0.zip
> 08-Mar-2010 10:51:45 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeFactoryImpl loadContri
> butions
> INFO: Loading contribution: file:/D:/sca-java-2.x/compliance-tests/assembly/targ
> et/oasis-contributions/General_Java-1.0.jar
> javax.xml.stream.XMLStreamException: java.net.MalformedURLException
> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize class org.apache.axis2.cont
> ext.ConfigurationContextFactory
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initi
> alize class org.apache.axis2.context.ConfigurationContextFactory
> at org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeImpl.start(NodeImpl.java:169)
> at org.apache.tuscany.sca.otest.TuscanyRuntimeBridge.startContribution(T
> uscanyRuntimeBridge.java:84)
>
> So something strange about the way I'm set up to run the tests in the
> compliance module. They still work when run from the existing otest
> structure.
Am looking at the pom for the assembly tests and it's using the
"shaded" jars. It looks like this is just running in JSE, i.e. not
OSGi? It's a bit strange as the CNF only happens on some of the tests
but all tests are using binding.ws. Still looking but this
javax.xml.stream.XMLStreamException: java.net.MalformedURLException is
interesting.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
I've spent a while getting all the OASIS compliance tests going again
in trunk, all the failing ones are now excluded and the rest are
passing so i've added them back into the build. This is the list of
excluded failing tests:
<exclude>**/ASM_4001_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3481 -->
<exclude>**/ASM_5039_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-xxxx -->
<exclude>**/ASM_5040_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-xxxx -->
<exclude>**/ASM_6015_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3481 -->
<exclude>**/ASM_6040_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-xxxx -->
<exclude>**/ASM_8002_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3481 -->
<exclude>**/ASM_9005_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-xxxx -->
<exclude>**/ASM_10002_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3481 -->
<exclude>**/ASM_12001_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3481 -->
<exclude>**/ASM_13002_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3481 -->
<exclude>**/ASM_13004_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3481 -->
<exclude>**/JCA_8007_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3482 -->
<exclude>**/POL_3001_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3370 -->
<exclude>**/POL_3002_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3370 -->
<exclude>**/POL_4003_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3488 -->
<exclude>**/POL_4028_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-xxxx -->
<exclude>**/POL_9006_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3487-->
<exclude>**/POL_9009_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3487-->
<exclude>**/POL_9015_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3487-->
<exclude>**/POL_9016_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3487-->
<exclude>**/POL_9017_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3487-->
<exclude>**/POL_9018_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3487-->
<exclude>**/POL_10001_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3491-->
<exclude>**/POL_10002_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-3491-->
<exclude>**/POL_11001_TestCase.java</exclude><!-- see
TUSCANY-xxxx -->
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Running the assembly tests after all the schema changing + the latest
changes from OASIS. I've fixed the straightforward ones where the
messages where a little out of line. This is what I see failing now...
testDummy(client.ASM_6015_TestCase) - we already had this - TUSCANY-3481
testDummy(client.ASM_13002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_9005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5039_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5040_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6039_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6040_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_6036_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_10002_TestCase) - we already had this - TUSCANY-3503
testDummy(client.ASM_5038_TestCase)
The majority are new tests that have been added. I haven't analyzed or
logged errors.
Some of the others that were failing due to TUSCANY-3503 are not any
more. Needs double checking
Regards
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
>
> I've updated it for this now, but you/anyone should have been able to
> do it too shouldn't you as its just in the regular trunk svn -
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/compliance-tests/java-ci/,
> or is there some problem I don't realize?
>
> ...ant
>
Ah yes. I just got confused about which files were being used. Sorry
about that.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I've fixed POJO_8003 and POJO_8012 under TUSCANY-3483 . Can't remove
> the excludes from the compliance test as the error properties file
> requires an update. See [1]. Are you able to do this Ant?
>
I've updated it for this now, but you/anyone should have been able to
do it too shouldn't you as its just in the regular trunk svn -
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/compliance-tests/java-ci/,
or is there some problem I don't realize?
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
I've fixed POJO_8003 and POJO_8012 under TUSCANY-3483 . Can't remove
the excludes from the compliance test as the error properties file
requires an update. See [1]. Are you able to do this Ant?
Regards
Simon
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tuscany/otest/newlayout/tuscany-java-ci-test-runner/src/test/resources/tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-errors.properties?r1=921917&r2=921916&pathrev=921917
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The difference between the old otest setup and the tests in trunk is
>>> that the trunk ones use the JDK XML parser and the otests using
>>> Woodstox. That was also causing POL_4013 and POL_4028 to fail. I've
>>> added the Woodstox impl dependency to the trunk policy tests and
>>> POL_4013 passes but POL_4028 gets further but still fails for me but
>>> it does in the otests for me too. I'll try adding woodstox to the JCA
>>> tests to see if that fixes JCA_110004 too, though it would be good to
>>> fully understand why these are failing and try to fix it or at least
>>> document what the restrictions are when using the Sun JDK.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. So POL_4028 fails for you in the otest module? It passes
>> for me. What does it fail with in otest for you?
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> In both trunk and otest:
>
> org.junit.ComparisonFailure: expected:<[excep]tion> but was:<[POL_4028
> request no invoca]tion>
>
> But actually i haven't done a full build yet this morning so let me
> try that first to see if there have been any changes that might have
> fixed it.
>
> ...ant
>
Full build done, still have POL_4028 failing and JCA_11004 passing.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The difference between the old otest setup and the tests in trunk is
>> that the trunk ones use the JDK XML parser and the otests using
>> Woodstox. That was also causing POL_4013 and POL_4028 to fail. I've
>> added the Woodstox impl dependency to the trunk policy tests and
>> POL_4013 passes but POL_4028 gets further but still fails for me but
>> it does in the otests for me too. I'll try adding woodstox to the JCA
>> tests to see if that fixes JCA_110004 too, though it would be good to
>> fully understand why these are failing and try to fix it or at least
>> document what the restrictions are when using the Sun JDK.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Interesting. So POL_4028 fails for you in the otest module? It passes
> for me. What does it fail with in otest for you?
>
> Simon
>
In both trunk and otest:
org.junit.ComparisonFailure: expected:<[excep]tion> but was:<[POL_4028
request no invoca]tion>
But actually i haven't done a full build yet this morning so let me
try that first to see if there have been any changes that might have
fixed it.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
>
> The difference between the old otest setup and the tests in trunk is
> that the trunk ones use the JDK XML parser and the otests using
> Woodstox. That was also causing POL_4013 and POL_4028 to fail. I've
> added the Woodstox impl dependency to the trunk policy tests and
> POL_4013 passes but POL_4028 gets further but still fails for me but
> it does in the otests for me too. I'll try adding woodstox to the JCA
> tests to see if that fixes JCA_110004 too, though it would be good to
> fully understand why these are failing and try to fix it or at least
> document what the restrictions are when using the Sun JDK.
>
> ...ant
>
Interesting. So POL_4028 fails for you in the otest module? It passes
for me. What does it fail with in otest for you?
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd not deployed the latest OASIS assembly test runner jar, could you
>>> try again now (you'll need to use mvn -U to pickup the new jar)?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> Ah, splendid. Just re-run the tests and it's looking much better.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> I've done a few edits so that only the tests that really fail are
> commented out.
>
> In my build JCA_11004 fails here but doesn't in the old otest module.
> Seems to be a problem with passing a Date in a JAXB object.
>
> Something else is a little odd in that the error properties files for
> assembly are different here when compared to the one in the otest
> module. I've got them as close as I can but it seems that the tests in
> compliance-tests are behaving slightly differently that they do
> directly from OASIS. Haven't got to the bottom of it yet.
>
> Simon
>
The difference between the old otest setup and the tests in trunk is
that the trunk ones use the JDK XML parser and the otests using
Woodstox. That was also causing POL_4013 and POL_4028 to fail. I've
added the Woodstox impl dependency to the trunk policy tests and
POL_4013 passes but POL_4028 gets further but still fails for me but
it does in the otests for me too. I'll try adding woodstox to the JCA
tests to see if that fixes JCA_110004 too, though it would be good to
fully understand why these are failing and try to fix it or at least
document what the restrictions are when using the Sun JDK.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In my build JCA_11004 fails here but doesn't in the old otest module.
> Seems to be a problem with passing a Date in a JAXB object.
>
JCA_11004 is passing ok for me and also in the Hudson build, i've
tried with Sun and IBM JDK 6 and with/without The Woodstox impl. Whats
you're environment when it fails?
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I'd not deployed the latest OASIS assembly test runner jar, could you
>> try again now (you'll need to use mvn -U to pickup the new jar)?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Ah, splendid. Just re-run the tests and it's looking much better.
>
> Simon
>
I've done a few edits so that only the tests that really fail are
commented out.
In my build JCA_11004 fails here but doesn't in the old otest module.
Seems to be a problem with passing a Date in a JAXB object.
Something else is a little odd in that the error properties files for
assembly are different here when compared to the one in the otest
module. I've got them as close as I can but it seems that the tests in
compliance-tests are behaving slightly differently that they do
directly from OASIS. Haven't got to the bottom of it yet.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
>>
>
> I'd not deployed the latest OASIS assembly test runner jar, could you
> try again now (you'll need to use mvn -U to pickup the new jar)?
>
> ...ant
>
Ah, splendid. Just re-run the tests and it's looking much better.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:02 AM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I am getting a clean build, and i thought Hudson was too though I've
>>> just kicked off another Hudson build to confirm its still working ok.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>
>> Hmmm. Thanks Ant. Must be something about my environment. Still looking.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> No, I just setup up a separate Hudson job to run just the assembly
> tests and thats seeing the same problem as you so there must be some
> config issue. I'll take a look.
>
> ...ant
>
I'd not deployed the latest OASIS assembly test runner jar, could you
try again now (you'll need to use mvn -U to pickup the new jar)?
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I am getting a clean build, and i thought Hudson was too though I've
>> just kicked off another Hudson build to confirm its still working ok.
>>
>> ...ant
>
> Hmmm. Thanks Ant. Must be something about my environment. Still looking.
>
> Simon
>
No, I just setup up a separate Hudson job to run just the assembly
tests and thats seeing the same problem as you so there must be some
config issue. I'll take a look.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am getting a clean build, and i thought Hudson was too though I've
> just kicked off another Hudson build to confirm its still working ok.
>
> ...ant
Hmmm. Thanks Ant. Must be something about my environment. Still looking.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
I am getting a clean build, and i thought Hudson was too though I've
just kicked off another Hudson build to confirm its still working ok.
...ant
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I've done this now in the trunk compliance-test modules, there are
>> still some JIRAs that need raising so some of the comments are
>> referencing JIRA TUSCANY-xxxx for those.
>>
>
> Hi
>
> Are you getting a clean build now? I'm seeing 50 or so assembly
> compliance tests failing due to some axis strangeness. For example,
>
> Running client.ASM_6011_TestCase
> Implementation language set to: _Java
> 08-Mar-2010 10:51:45 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeImpl start
> INFO: Starting node: http://tuscany.apache.org/sca/1.1/nodes/default0 domain: de
> fault
> 08-Mar-2010 10:51:45 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeFactoryImpl loadContri
> butions
> INFO: Loading contribution: file:/D:/sca-java-2.x/compliance-tests/assembly/targ
> et/oasis-contributions/General-1.0.zip
> 08-Mar-2010 10:51:45 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeFactoryImpl loadContri
> butions
> INFO: Loading contribution: file:/D:/sca-java-2.x/compliance-tests/assembly/targ
> et/oasis-contributions/General_Java-1.0.jar
> javax.xml.stream.XMLStreamException: java.net.MalformedURLException
> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize class org.apache.axis2.cont
> ext.ConfigurationContextFactory
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initi
> alize class org.apache.axis2.context.ConfigurationContextFactory
> at org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeImpl.start(NodeImpl.java:169)
> at org.apache.tuscany.sca.otest.TuscanyRuntimeBridge.startContribution(T
> uscanyRuntimeBridge.java:84)
>
> So something strange about the way I'm set up to run the tests in the
> compliance module. They still work when run from the existing otest
> structure.
>
> Simon
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
> I've done this now in the trunk compliance-test modules, there are
> still some JIRAs that need raising so some of the comments are
> referencing JIRA TUSCANY-xxxx for those.
>
Hi
Are you getting a clean build now? I'm seeing 50 or so assembly
compliance tests failing due to some axis strangeness. For example,
Running client.ASM_6011_TestCase
Implementation language set to: _Java
08-Mar-2010 10:51:45 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeImpl start
INFO: Starting node: http://tuscany.apache.org/sca/1.1/nodes/default0 domain: de
fault
08-Mar-2010 10:51:45 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeFactoryImpl loadContri
butions
INFO: Loading contribution: file:/D:/sca-java-2.x/compliance-tests/assembly/targ
et/oasis-contributions/General-1.0.zip
08-Mar-2010 10:51:45 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeFactoryImpl loadContri
butions
INFO: Loading contribution: file:/D:/sca-java-2.x/compliance-tests/assembly/targ
et/oasis-contributions/General_Java-1.0.jar
javax.xml.stream.XMLStreamException: java.net.MalformedURLException
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initialize class org.apache.axis2.cont
ext.ConfigurationContextFactory
java.lang.IllegalStateException: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: Could not initi
alize class org.apache.axis2.context.ConfigurationContextFactory
at org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeImpl.start(NodeImpl.java:169)
at org.apache.tuscany.sca.otest.TuscanyRuntimeBridge.startContribution(T
uscanyRuntimeBridge.java:84)
So something strange about the way I'm set up to run the tests in the
compliance module. They still work when run from the existing otest
structure.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> you've said the code isn't even working
>> completely yet
>
> I said that there was still work to do on matching. This relates to
> policy specific matching and not to unmatched intents checking.
>
>> so really it shouldn't be activated until it doesn't
>> break other not directly related compliance tests.
>
> The unmatched intents code is not "breaking" compliance tests.
It may not be now but it was, and, as there were no Tuscany tests for
the code commenting it out didn't break a single thing in Tuscany so
commenting it out and raising a JIRA for it seems like a good thing to
me. Anyway lets forget it for now as your suggestion below about
excluding failing tests from surefire sounds good so lets do that.
I've done this now in the trunk compliance-test modules, there are
still some JIRAs that need raising so some of the comments are
referencing JIRA TUSCANY-xxxx for those.
> compliance tests are failing with this error because it's a valid
> error in this case, i.e. the compliance tests have issues. It's in our
> interests to have OASIS produce an accurate compliance suite. In
> order to work through this with the OASIS guys I need the runtime to
> exhibit this valid error.
>
> I understand your desire to have the otests run clean and be part of
> the build. I would like that also. How about I disable the tests in
> question in an Tuscany specific way. I can, for example, add the
> following to our version of the assembly otest pom and check it in
> under TUSCANY-3481 (I could do the same in CAA for TUSACNY-3482)
>
> <plugin>
> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
> <version>2.4.3</version>
> <configuration>
> <excludes>
> <!-- see TUSCANY-3481 -->
> <exclude>**/ASM_6015_TestCase.java</exclude>
> </excludes>
> </configuration>
> </plugin>
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
> you've said the code isn't even working
> completely yet
I said that there was still work to do on matching. This relates to
policy specific matching and not to unmatched intents checking.
> so really it shouldn't be activated until it doesn't
> break other not directly related compliance tests.
The unmatched intents code is not "breaking" compliance tests. The
compliance tests are failing with this error because it's a valid
error in this case, i.e. the compliance tests have issues. It's in our
interests to have OASIS produce an accurate compliance suite. In
order to work through this with the OASIS guys I need the runtime to
exhibit this valid error.
I understand your desire to have the otests run clean and be part of
the build. I would like that also. How about I disable the tests in
question in an Tuscany specific way. I can, for example, add the
following to our version of the assembly otest pom and check it in
under TUSCANY-3481 (I could do the same in CAA for TUSACNY-3482)
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.4.3</version>
<configuration>
<excludes>
<!-- see TUSCANY-3481 -->
<exclude>**/ASM_6015_TestCase.java</exclude>
</excludes>
</configuration>
</plugin>
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I shall talk to you off list and help you working on resolving the
>> issues relating to this but if we don't fix those shortly then I'd
>> like to reopen and put back the work around for TUSCANY-3480 as it
>> gets all the assembly and Java CAA tests passing so we could then add
>> those test suites to the build, which is vastly more important IMHO
>> than arguing about root causes of one particular problem.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Am walking through the issues and any help is very much appreciated
> I agree that it's important to get the tests in the build.
> I disagree that the way to do that is by commenting out parts of the runtime.
Commenting out this particular bit of code doesn't break a single
existing Tuscany test and as you've said the code isn't even working
completely yet so really it shouldn't be activated until it doesn't
break other not directly related compliance tests.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
>
> I shall talk to you off list and help you working on resolving the
> issues relating to this but if we don't fix those shortly then I'd
> like to reopen and put back the work around for TUSCANY-3480 as it
> gets all the assembly and Java CAA tests passing so we could then add
> those test suites to the build, which is vastly more important IMHO
> than arguing about root causes of one particular problem.
>
> ...ant
>
Am walking through the issues and any help is very much appreciated
I agree that it's important to get the tests in the build.
I disagree that the way to do that is by commenting out parts of the runtime.
If we are to run with tests disabled then I would prefer that we adopt
an approach to disabling specific tests against which we can log open
JIRA numbers. For example, we could widen the feature you added to the
bridge to * out error tests that don't work. If this suits I will
undertake to ask OASIS to give us similar control over the outcome of
all tests (not just tests that are expected to report an error).
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Here's what I see for assembly/javacaa/javaci...
>
> I have closed TUSCANY-3480 and reverted the change as this is not the
> immediate root cause of the remaining problems.
>
I shall talk to you off list and help you working on resolving the
issues relating to this but if we don't fix those shortly then I'd
like to reopen and put back the work around for TUSCANY-3480 as it
gets all the assembly and Java CAA tests passing so we could then add
those test suites to the build, which is vastly more important IMHO
than arguing about root causes of one particular problem.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
The failures now for JavaCI 8003 and 8012 are due to incorrect
processing in the runtime to do with how the result of @Requires are
treated. Is this what is meant by the "The Java component type
calculation with @Requires to fix the three Java CI fails" comment
from earlier on in this tread. Does this imply that this issue is
already being addressed?
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
The JavaCI 8003 and 8012 namespace problem was just a local
environment problem on my PC. They are still failing but for other
reasons. I'll post on that when I've looked more closely at it.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Here's what I see for assembly/javacaa/javaci...
I have closed TUSCANY-3480 and reverted the change as this is not the
immediate root cause of the remaining problems.
Assembly
testDummy(client.ASM_6015_TestCase) - There is an assumption in the
test case that binding.sca "mayProvide"
confidentilaity and integrity.
However there is currently no requirement
in the spec that this is the
case as far as I can tell.
Action: get confirmation from OASIS
if yes fix our binding.sca
if no OASIS to fix the test
Java CAA
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8005_TestCase)
SEVERE: = Unable to match the endpoint reference
(@1135890)EndpointReference: URI =
TEST_JCA_8005Component1#reference(reference2) WIRED_TARGET_NOT_FOUND
Target = (@31992690)Endpoint: URI = TEST_JCA_8005Component3
[Unresolved] with the policy of the service to which it refers,
matching process was Match policy of (@1135890)EndpointReference: URI
= TEST_JCA_8005Component1#reference(reference2) WIRED_TARGET_NOT_FOUND
Target = (@31992690)Endpoint: URI = TEST_JCA_8005Component3
[Unresolved] to (@28138822)Endpoint: URI =
TEST_JCA_8005Component3#service-binding(Service1/Service1) No match
because there are unresolved intents
[{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/200903}testIntent2]
CAA doesn't define a policy set for this intent. Only provides
policy sets to intents 3 and 5 (possibly on purpose)
Now it may very well be a builder problem not getting the right
intents at the service but it's not a matching problem
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
SEVERE: = Unable to match the endpoint reference
(@19896612)EndpointReference: URI =
TEST_JCA_8007Component1#reference(reference1) WIRED_TARGET_NOT_FOUND
Target = (@32453138)Endpoint: URI = TEST_JCA_8007Component2
[Unresolved] with the policy of the service to which it refers,
matching process was Match policy of (@19896612)EndpointReference:
URI = TEST_JCA_8007Component1#reference(reference1)
WIRED_TARGET_NOT_FOUND Target = (@32453138)Endpoint: URI =
TEST_JCA_8007Component2 [Unresolved] to (@12612903)Endpoint: URI =
TEST_JCA_8007Component2#service-binding(Service5Intents/Service5Intents)
No match because there are unresolved intents
[{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/200903}testIntent4]
CAA doesn't define a policy set for this intent. Only provides
policy sets to intents 3 and 5 (possibly on purpose)
Now it may very well be a builder problem not getting the right
intents at the service but it's not a matching problem
Java CI
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8003_TestCase)
SEVERE: Intent
{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200903}propagatesTransaction
is not defined in SCA definitions
Incorrect namespace for intent in
org.oasisopen.sca.test.service1WithIntentImpl
Looks like somehow an incorrect version of the SCA API module is
being pulled in
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
SEVERE: Intent
{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200903}managedTransaction
is not defined in SCA definitions
Incorrect namespace for intent in
org.oasisopen.sca.test.service1WithIntentImpl
Looks like somehow an incorrect version of the SCA API module is
being pulled in
I'll create JIRA for these issues where they don't exist.
I would like to ensure that the tests that fail for issues that we are
in conversation with OASIS for continue
to fail explicitly. In this way when OASIS TC members run the tests
using Tuscany the issues are obvious to them.
As I've said before I'd also like to see us fix any problems that
appear to require Tuscany runtime fixes rather than working around
them and giving the false impression that we are passing more tests
than we really are.
I'll review the policy tests shortly.
Regards
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:30 PM, ant elder <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> JIRA already open against policy tests...
>>
>> POL_3001_TestCase - TUSCANY-3370
>> POL_3002_TestCase - TUSCANY-3370
>> POL_4003_TestCase - TUSCANY-3372
>> POL_4028_TestCase - TUSCANY-3380
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> I've fixed various error message problems to do with old namespaces,
> missing suffixes, hardcoded paths etc which got 5 more policy tests
> passing so its down to these 11 which fail for real issues:
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4028_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9015_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9017_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9018_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
>
> ...ant
>
Or more helpfully here's the list with hints on what they're about:
POL_3001 TUSCANY-3370 intent conflicts with binding (requires SOAP but
wsdl has EJB binding)
POL_3002 TUSCANY-3370 policyset conflicts with binding (requires SOAP
but wsdl has EJB binding)
POL_4003 TUSCANY-3372 externally attached policy sets
POL_4028 TUSCANY-3380 policySet/@attachTo points to a property
POL_9006 reference with transactedOneWay on a non-global tran component
POL_9009 service with transactedOneWay on a non-global tran component
POL_9015 managedTransaction.local and a service with propagatesTransaction
POL_9016 noManagedTransaction and a service with propagatesTransaction
POL_9017 reference with propagatesTransaction on a local tran component
POL_9018 reference with propagatesTransaction on a
noManagedTransaction component
POL_10001 noListener intent is not used on a service
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> JIRA already open against policy tests...
>
> POL_3001_TestCase - TUSCANY-3370
> POL_3002_TestCase - TUSCANY-3370
> POL_4003_TestCase - TUSCANY-3372
> POL_4028_TestCase - TUSCANY-3380
>
>
> Simon
>
I've fixed various error message problems to do with old namespaces,
missing suffixes, hardcoded paths etc which got 5 more policy tests
passing so its down to these 11 which fail for real issues:
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4028_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9015_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9018_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
JIRA already open against policy tests...
POL_3001_TestCase - TUSCANY-3370
POL_3002_TestCase - TUSCANY-3370
POL_4003_TestCase - TUSCANY-3372
POL_4028_TestCase - TUSCANY-3380
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
>
> I've not looked at the policy spec for ages but none of those sound
> like we'd need actual runtime support for things like transactions,
> async, noListener etc so it seems like we may be able to get them all
> passing now with whats there in the model already, does that sound
> right or can someone see things that they know wont be able to be
> working?
I don't really know how noListener and asynchInvocation will be
implemented although they do imply specific configuration to the
runtime, i.e. builder changes. Unless we need optional configuration
over and above this then a policy set is not required. Too early to
say though. If we decided that a policy set is not required then we
still need a way to process these intents so that we don't get an
unsatisfied intent error.
If we don't provide runtime for transactions we'll get an unstatisfied
intent error. However the transaction policies are being worked on and
there is probably enough there now to get through the tests. We do
need to make sure the transaction policy modules are available as
dependencies.
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
The Assembly and Java CAA tests are all passing and all but three of
the POJO (Java CI) one, so that leaves remaining:
- The Java component type calculation with @Requires to fix the three
Java CI fails
- TUSCANY-3480
- The policy test failures which are these (with a bit of text added
to say what the test is about):
POL_3001 intent conflicts with binding (requires SOAP but wsdl has EJB binding)
POL_3002 policyset conflicts with binding (requires SOAP but wsdl has
EJB binding)
POL_3003 definitions.xml with duplicat intents
POL_4003 externally attached policy sets
POL_4012 mutually exclusive intents
POL_4027 duplicate bindingType definitions
POL_4028 policySet/@attachTo points to a property
POL_5001 unknown implementation types
POL_9006 reference with transactedOneWay on a non-global tran component
POL_9009 service with transactedOneWay on a non-global tran component
POL_9015 managedTransaction.local and a service with propagatesTransaction
POL_9016 noManagedTransaction and a service with propagatesTransaction
POL_9017 reference with propagatesTransaction on a local tran component
POL_9018 reference with propagatesTransaction on a
noManagedTransaction component
POL_10001 noListener intent is not used on a service
POL_11001 does not conform to the Policy FW schema
I've not looked at the policy spec for ages but none of those sound
like we'd need actual runtime support for things like transactions,
async, noListener etc so it seems like we may be able to get them all
passing now with whats there in the model already, does that sound
right or can someone see things that they know wont be able to be
working?
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
K, thanks Ant
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Am trying to work out what happened with the addition of these stars.
> The messages file seems to have been re-ordered in a strange way (I
> have some local changes so the re-order causes problems) and a lot of
> the tests cases I have already worked on over the last few days have
> had a * added to the start. What was the thinking here?
>
> Simon
>
The order was:
- first all the messages that had the correct message in the order that they
originally were (which i think was numerical order)
- then all the messages that already existed but had an incorrect message,
and those has a * added at the start, and that list in numerical order
- and finally then messages for all the tests that were missing with just a
* for the message
I didn't really "choose" that order, it just turned out like that as the
messages were added :) I don' mind what the order is so totally happy to
reorder it, which you've done now so that seems fine to me.
...ant
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
I've just fixed it back to follow numerical order
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
I'd like to revert it back to before the stars were added and then try
and merge Ram's 13000 service messages in manually. We can added the
stars if someone wants to after that (but without reordering the
content if possible)
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Am trying to work out what happened with the addition of these stars.
The messages file seems to have been re-ordered in a strange way (I
have some local changes so the re-order causes problems) and a lot of
the tests cases I have already worked on over the last few days have
had a * added to the start. What was the thinking here?
Simon
Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Good summary Ant. I'm looking at the assembly one for now. I should
point out that when fixing the *'d one some care has to be taken to
ensure that error message being reported is the one expected by the
test it's not just a matter of copying the error message reported to
the tuscany-oasis-sca-tests-errors.properties file.
Regards
Simon