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 (JIRA)" <tu...@ws.apache.org> on 2008/01/29 11:09:34 UTC

[jira] Closed: (TUSCANY-1516) Possible promotion problem with Tuscany

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1516?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

ant elder closed TUSCANY-1516.
------------------------------

    Resolution: Cannot Reproduce

Closing as "Cannot Reproduce" as per the previous comments the attached test is missing files and out of date. This is likely fixed now anyway, please reopen if the issue persists.

> Possible promotion problem with Tuscany
> ---------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TUSCANY-1516
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1516
>             Project: Tuscany
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Java SCA Core Runtime
>         Environment: All
>            Reporter: Hasan Muhammad
>             Fix For: Java-SCA-Next
>
>         Attachments: default.composite, MyServiceImpl.java, mySimpleService.composite, MyTotalService.java, MyTotalServiceImpl.java, MyTotalServiceTest.java
>
>
> I am experiencing a testcase failure in case of the scenario where a composite file is embedded in another and from the embedded composite we promote a service.  I have attached composite files. 
> In the testcases, if we locate a service as such and obtain the location property, the value is correct and is "Durham"
> 	myServiceAnother = context.locateService(MyService.class, "MySimpleServiceInRecursiveAnother/MyServiceNew1");
>                 assertEquals("Durham",myServiceAnother.getLocation());
> But if we locate another service from the parent composite directly as such and obtain the location property, the value is incorrect and is again "Durham". 
> 	myTotalServiceNew= context.locateService(MyTotalService.class, "MyTotalServiceNewComponent");
> 	assertEquals("Raleigh",myTotalServiceNew.getLocation());
> Shouldnt it be "Raleigh" in the second case since we are accessing the component/service defined in the parent component and not the promoted one from the embedded composite? I dont know where to look but is this a potential wiring problem?
> I will be attaching the composite files and test case.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org