You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> on 2010/07/14 12:45:11 UTC
Current overall otest status
As the otests have been changing recently (as has the Tuscany code)
I've just been through and re-ran all the latest code and this is what
I see...
Assembly
All pass
JCAA
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10006_TestCase)
Tests run: 214, Failures: 26, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
JCI
All pass
Policy
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.POL_4009_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9019_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4006_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4018_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9021_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_10002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9023_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4012_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9015_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4020_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4010_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9020_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4015_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9022_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4033_TestCase)
Tests run: 120, Failures: 26, Errors: 0, Skipped: 60
WS
All pass
JMS
I'm unable to run these are the moment at the central maven repo is
down and it's trying to download lots of stuff
I don't believe we have a full set of tests here.
BPEL
We don't have these tests in out otest dir yet. I'll look to add them
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
I think the AllTests runner has fallen into disrepair, probably
because you can run a project as a junit test in eclipse and it will
behave in a maven like way, recognising and running all test cases.
Kelvin.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I see the disconnect between your results and mine. Out of the
> policy tests show failing, only 3001, 4012, 10001, and 10002 are still
> included in the oasis AllTests runner. The others are still being run
> from maven (except for 3002, which was removed from both AllTests and
> the top level pom -- that was a recent change.) I have local updates
> for all but 3001, so that's the only test that I see failing when
> running AllTests from eclipse.
>
> Brent
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Just re-run them all again and this is what I see now....
>>
>>
>> Assembly
>> =======
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 132, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>
>> JCA
>> ===
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10006_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
>>
>> JCI
>> ===
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 78, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 39
>>
>> Policy
>> =====
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.POL_4007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_4009_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_4016_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_9019_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_9021_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_10002_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_9023_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_4012_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_9020_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_4015_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_9022_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_4033_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 120, Failures: 15, Errors: 0, Skipped: 60
>>
>> WS
>> ===
>>
>> All pass
>>
>>
>> So some of the policy tests have been fixed but we've picked up a
>> couple of failures in JCA and JCI
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> --
>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com>.
OK, I see the disconnect between your results and mine. Out of the
policy tests show failing, only 3001, 4012, 10001, and 10002 are still
included in the oasis AllTests runner. The others are still being run
from maven (except for 3002, which was removed from both AllTests and
the top level pom -- that was a recent change.) I have local updates
for all but 3001, so that's the only test that I see failing when
running AllTests from eclipse.
Brent
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Just re-run them all again and this is what I see now....
>
>
> Assembly
> =======
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 132, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> JCA
> ===
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10006_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
>
> JCI
> ===
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 78, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 39
>
> Policy
> =====
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.POL_4007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9019_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9021_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_10002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9023_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9020_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4015_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9022_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4033_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 120, Failures: 15, Errors: 0, Skipped: 60
>
> WS
> ===
>
> All pass
>
>
> So some of the policy tests have been fixed but we've picked up a
> couple of failures in JCA and JCI
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:45 PM, kelvin goodson
<ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> I fixed 12007 and 8, 10003 is not in the same failure pattern so I
> haven't currently fixed that one.
> Kelvin.
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM, kelvin goodson
> <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Mike Edwards
>>>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Simon,
>>>>>
>>>>> More comments on the ASM testcases
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Morning folks. Just back off vacation so thought I would re-run the
>>>>>> otests to get a feel for the current state of play. I've posted what I
>>>>>> see below. From the recent comments on this thread I assume that at
>>>>>> least some of these new failures are related to either stricter policy
>>>>>> checking of new spec features. I'll have a crack at matching the
>>>>>> previous failure comments against this list. If someone already has
>>>>>> the list let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assembly
>>>>>> ========
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Results :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Failed tests:
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5044_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_10002_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5043_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 9, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 run clean for me. What problems do you see?
>>>>>
>>>>> ASM_8018 fails for me because the error message from Tuscany has been
>>>>> changed, so in this case the error properties file needs updating - I'll do
>>>>> that next.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours, Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 fail for me as a subsequent builder problem is
>>>> hiding the required error message.
>>>>
>>>> Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
>>>> at org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.write(CompositeProcessor.java:931)
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>> --
>>>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>>>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> And ASM_8018 is the same as 5 and 17.
>>>
>>> 12007, 12008, 1003 are failing because the format of the error
>>> messages that Tuscany is now generating
>>
>> I'll go fix these as I introduced the extra message element
>>>
>>> 10002 is failing due to an unresolved intent so I probably to do with
>>> tighter policy checking.
>>>
>>> I'll start by looking at the builder issue affecting 5, 17 and 18.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> --
>>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>>
>>
>
I've also fixed 8005, 17 and 18 and the fix is checked in.
I have a fix for 10002 but not checked in yet.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
As of today this is what I see...
Assembly
========
Results :
Tests run: 132, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
JCA
===
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase) - properties - OASIS fix
required (TUSCANY-3626)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase) - intent/policy
inheritance - OASIS Fix
Tests run: 218, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 109
I also have local fixes for 11016 (TUSCANY-3656),waiting for OASIS to apply.
JCI
===
Tests run: 122, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 61
Policy
======
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.POL_4019_TestCase)
Tests run: 112, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 56
WS
==
Tests run: 74, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 37
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Ran the tests the morning with the latest Tuscany and test code and
for JCA I now see...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase) - asynch operation -
needs default binding support
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase) - asynch operation -
needs default binding support
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase) - asynch operation -
needs default binding support
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase) - asynch operation -
needs default binding support
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase) - properties - OASIS fix
required (TUSCANY-3626)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase) - intent/policy inheritance
Tests run: 218, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 109
I have local changes for 11016 which required OASIS fixes (TUSCANY-3656)
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
> JCI
> ===
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8036_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 122, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 61
>
> I have a few local OASIS fixes to get down to 1 failure so there will
> be more for others.
>
OK, I'm declaring something of a victory for JCI as I have all the
tests passing here. There will be failures for others as there are two
outstanding JCI issues with OASIS (I have local changes). Also the JCA
issue (TUSCANY-3648) prevents me from committing a final Tuscany JCI
fix.
There is still a bit of tidying to do and I'm going to move on to
helping with JCAA tests, some of which touch the same code, so I'll
pick that up there.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
>>>
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what does the skipped count means ? Are these
>> failing and ignored tests ?
>>
>> --
>> Luciano Resende
>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
>> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>>
>
> Good question. I think it's just an artifact of how we are running the
> tests but I'll check.
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
Looking at the otest JUnit test cases they generally have an ignored
test commented as follows....
/**
* Dummy method to ensure that things work with JUnit 3 eg within
Eclipse Ganymede
*/
@Ignore
@Test
public void testFoo() throws Exception {
}
So it seems that the ignored tests are really ignored tests.
This does mean that the number of tests I quotes is probably double
what it really is (I just totted up the reported number of tests).
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Mike Edwards
>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK there's been some goos progress. Assembly, Policy, WS are good.
>>>> Here's the latest results I see.
>>>>
>>>> Assembly
>>>> ========
>>>>
>>>> Failed tests:
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase) - OASIS Issue - fails dues to
>>>> externalAttachment elements for 10003
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase) - OASIS Issue -
>>>> confidentiality.transport
>>>>
>>>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>> Assembly testcases ASM_8014 & ASM_12006 fixed under OASIS issue ASSEMBLY-240
>>> as of 04/08/2010.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yours, Mike.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What with vacation and all it's been a few days but I've just re-run
>> the otests and this is what I see this morning. We're getting there!
>> 20 tests to crack out of 658.
>>
>> Assembly
>> ========
>>
>> Tests run: 132, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>
>> JCAA
>> =====
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_1001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_1002_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 218, Failures: 18, Errors: 0, Skipped: 109
>>
>> JCI
>> ===
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8036_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 122, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 61
>>
>> I have a few local OASIS fixes to get down to 1 failure so there will
>> be more for others.
>>
>> Policy
>> =====
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.POL_4019_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 112, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 56
>>
>> WS
>> ===
>>
>> Tests run: 74, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 37
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> --
>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>
>
> Out of curiosity, what does the skipped count means ? Are these
> failing and ignored tests ?
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
Good question. I think it's just an artifact of how we are running the
tests but I'll check.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Mike Edwards
> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>>
>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>>
>>> OK there's been some goos progress. Assembly, Policy, WS are good.
>>> Here's the latest results I see.
>>>
>>> Assembly
>>> ========
>>>
>>> Failed tests:
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase) - OASIS Issue - fails dues to
>>> externalAttachment elements for 10003
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase) - OASIS Issue -
>>> confidentiality.transport
>>>
>>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> Assembly testcases ASM_8014 & ASM_12006 fixed under OASIS issue ASSEMBLY-240
>> as of 04/08/2010.
>>
>>
>> Yours, Mike.
>>
>>
>
> What with vacation and all it's been a few days but I've just re-run
> the otests and this is what I see this morning. We're getting there!
> 20 tests to crack out of 658.
>
> Assembly
> ========
>
> Tests run: 132, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> JCAA
> =====
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_1001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_1002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 218, Failures: 18, Errors: 0, Skipped: 109
>
> JCI
> ===
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8036_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 122, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 61
>
> I have a few local OASIS fixes to get down to 1 failure so there will
> be more for others.
>
> Policy
> =====
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.POL_4019_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 112, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 56
>
> WS
> ===
>
> Tests run: 74, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 37
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
Out of curiosity, what does the skipped count means ? Are these
failing and ignored tests ?
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Mike Edwards
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
>
> Simon Laws wrote:
>>
>> OK there's been some goos progress. Assembly, Policy, WS are good.
>> Here's the latest results I see.
>>
>> Assembly
>> ========
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase) - OASIS Issue - fails dues to
>> externalAttachment elements for 10003
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase) - OASIS Issue -
>> confidentiality.transport
>>
>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> Assembly testcases ASM_8014 & ASM_12006 fixed under OASIS issue ASSEMBLY-240
> as of 04/08/2010.
>
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
>
What with vacation and all it's been a few days but I've just re-run
the otests and this is what I see this morning. We're getting there!
20 tests to crack out of 658.
Assembly
========
Tests run: 132, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
JCAA
=====
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_1001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_1002_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
Tests run: 218, Failures: 18, Errors: 0, Skipped: 109
JCI
===
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8036_TestCase)
Tests run: 122, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 61
I have a few local OASIS fixes to get down to 1 failure so there will
be more for others.
Policy
=====
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.POL_4019_TestCase)
Tests run: 112, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 56
WS
===
Tests run: 74, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 37
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
Folks,
Simon Laws wrote:
> OK there's been some goos progress. Assembly, Policy, WS are good.
> Here's the latest results I see.
>
> Assembly
> ========
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase) - OASIS Issue - fails dues to
> externalAttachment elements for 10003
> testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase) - OASIS Issue -
> confidentiality.transport
>
> Tests run: 134, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
<snip>
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
Assembly testcases ASM_8014 & ASM_12006 fixed under OASIS issue ASSEMBLY-240 as of 04/08/2010.
Yours, Mike.
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
OK there's been some goos progress. Assembly, Policy, WS are good.
Here's the latest results I see.
Assembly
========
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase) - OASIS Issue - fails dues to
externalAttachment elements for 10003
testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase) - OASIS Issue -
confidentiality.transport
Tests run: 134, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
JCA
===
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
JCI
===
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8030_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8017_TestCase) - OASIS issues,
@Remotable needs
to be applicable to method params (Possible Tuscany issue once this is
done)
serviceName
property requires @Propertry - local change made
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8023_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8032_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8029_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8028_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8031_TestCase)
Tests run: 114, Failures: 7, Errors: 0, Skipped: 57
These are nearly all new tests that have been recently added (I
understand there are a small number still to add). Am just working my
way through them.
Policy
======
Tests run: 112, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 56
WS
==
Tests run: 74, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 37
Regards
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:36 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:09 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> POL_3002 can be ignored -- the test doesn't exist anymore.
>>>
>>> POL_4015 and POL_4016 shouldn't be run, either. They test that an
>>> exception is thrown when a runtime doesn't support directly attached
>>> (4015) or externally attached (4016) policy sets. Since we support
>>> both, both tests will fail. OASIS has addressed this by providing
>>> different versions of the JUnit test runner (AllTests,
>>> AllExtAttachTests, and AllDirectAttachTests.)
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that you're both seeing 4033, 9022, and 9023 failing,
>>> though. How are they failing?
>>>
>>
>> Ok I've committed excludes to the otest policy pom.xml surefire config
>> to not run 3002, 4015 and 4016.
>>
>> 9022 and 9023 are failing for me as the intent names come out in a
>> different order to what we have in the err msgs file, its different
>> for me if i run from mvn or eclipse with asyncInvocation before
>> propagatesTransaction in one and the other way round in the other.
>> I've committed a change to the err msgs file to use *** for the intent
>> name in the err msgs, though i accept that makes the test slightly
>> less explicit so if anyone has a better approach ...
>>
>> That leaves just 4033 failing for me which is due to:
>>
>> Caused by: org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Contribution:
>> POL_4033, Artifact: META-INF/definitions.xml, Definitions:
>> jar:file:/C:/Tuscany/svn/otests/new
>> layout/tuscany-policy-test-runner/../sca-policy/POL_4033/target/POL_4033.zip!/META-INF/definitions.xml]
>> - ContributionReadException occurred due to: org.apache.tus
>> cany.sca.contribution.processor.ContributionReadException:
>> javax.xml.xpath.XPathExpressionException
>>
>> and that only happens in mvn it works ok in eclipse. I'll try to debug
>> it a bit further.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> 4033 is failing for me with differences in the what message text comes
> out for different JDKs. The Sun JDK isn't outputing the xpath
> exception text "A location path was expected, but the following token
> was encountered:". I've truncated the expected text in the error
> messages file as a work around.
>
> So now the policy test suite is all passing cleanly for me.
>
> ...ant
>
Hey, nice work chaps, that's a bit of a milestone!
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:09 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> POL_3002 can be ignored -- the test doesn't exist anymore.
>>
>> POL_4015 and POL_4016 shouldn't be run, either. They test that an
>> exception is thrown when a runtime doesn't support directly attached
>> (4015) or externally attached (4016) policy sets. Since we support
>> both, both tests will fail. OASIS has addressed this by providing
>> different versions of the JUnit test runner (AllTests,
>> AllExtAttachTests, and AllDirectAttachTests.)
>>
>> I'm surprised that you're both seeing 4033, 9022, and 9023 failing,
>> though. How are they failing?
>>
>
> Ok I've committed excludes to the otest policy pom.xml surefire config
> to not run 3002, 4015 and 4016.
>
> 9022 and 9023 are failing for me as the intent names come out in a
> different order to what we have in the err msgs file, its different
> for me if i run from mvn or eclipse with asyncInvocation before
> propagatesTransaction in one and the other way round in the other.
> I've committed a change to the err msgs file to use *** for the intent
> name in the err msgs, though i accept that makes the test slightly
> less explicit so if anyone has a better approach ...
>
> That leaves just 4033 failing for me which is due to:
>
> Caused by: org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Contribution:
> POL_4033, Artifact: META-INF/definitions.xml, Definitions:
> jar:file:/C:/Tuscany/svn/otests/new
> layout/tuscany-policy-test-runner/../sca-policy/POL_4033/target/POL_4033.zip!/META-INF/definitions.xml]
> - ContributionReadException occurred due to: org.apache.tus
> cany.sca.contribution.processor.ContributionReadException:
> javax.xml.xpath.XPathExpressionException
>
> and that only happens in mvn it works ok in eclipse. I'll try to debug
> it a bit further.
>
> ...ant
>
4033 is failing for me with differences in the what message text comes
out for different JDKs. The Sun JDK isn't outputing the xpath
exception text "A location path was expected, but the following token
was encountered:". I've truncated the expected text in the error
messages file as a work around.
So now the policy test suite is all passing cleanly for me.
...ant
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> POL_3002 can be ignored -- the test doesn't exist anymore.
>
> POL_4015 and POL_4016 shouldn't be run, either. They test that an
> exception is thrown when a runtime doesn't support directly attached
> (4015) or externally attached (4016) policy sets. Since we support
> both, both tests will fail. OASIS has addressed this by providing
> different versions of the JUnit test runner (AllTests,
> AllExtAttachTests, and AllDirectAttachTests.)
>
> I'm surprised that you're both seeing 4033, 9022, and 9023 failing,
> though. How are they failing?
>
Ok I've committed excludes to the otest policy pom.xml surefire config
to not run 3002, 4015 and 4016.
9022 and 9023 are failing for me as the intent names come out in a
different order to what we have in the err msgs file, its different
for me if i run from mvn or eclipse with asyncInvocation before
propagatesTransaction in one and the other way round in the other.
I've committed a change to the err msgs file to use *** for the intent
name in the err msgs, though i accept that makes the test slightly
less explicit so if anyone has a better approach ...
That leaves just 4033 failing for me which is due to:
Caused by: org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Contribution:
POL_4033, Artifact: META-INF/definitions.xml, Definitions:
jar:file:/C:/Tuscany/svn/otests/new
layout/tuscany-policy-test-runner/../sca-policy/POL_4033/target/POL_4033.zip!/META-INF/definitions.xml]
- ContributionReadException occurred due to: org.apache.tus
cany.sca.contribution.processor.ContributionReadException:
javax.xml.xpath.XPathExpressionException
and that only happens in mvn it works ok in eclipse. I'll try to debug
it a bit further.
...ant
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com>.
POL_3002 can be ignored -- the test doesn't exist anymore.
POL_4015 and POL_4016 shouldn't be run, either. They test that an
exception is thrown when a runtime doesn't support directly attached
(4015) or externally attached (4016) policy sets. Since we support
both, both tests will fail. OASIS has addressed this by providing
different versions of the JUnit test runner (AllTests,
AllExtAttachTests, and AllDirectAttachTests.)
I'm surprised that you're both seeing 4033, 9022, and 9023 failing,
though. How are they failing?
Brent
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:27 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:57 PM, kelvin goodson
>>> <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> yes, that's it - I have fixed it
>>>>
>>>> Kelvin.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:23 PM, kelvin goodson
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Kelvin. I think we're looking good for Assembly again. I now
>>> get the following...
>>>
>>> Failed tests:
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase) - fails dues to
>>> externalAttachment elements for 10003
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase) - confidentiality.transport
>>>
>>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>
>>> Both of these issues are caused by stricter policy validation and I'll
>>> raise with OASIS.
>>>
>>
>> FWIW here's what i see for the other test suites:
>>
>> Java CI Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8020_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8017_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8016_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 92, Failures: 5, Errors: 0, Skipped: 46
>>
>> Java CAA Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8006_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
>>
>> Policy Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.POL_4016_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_9023_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_4015_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_9022_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.POL_4033_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 118, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 59
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Yep, I see the same. I've started looking at the JCI failures and a a
> number of these are also policy related.
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:27 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:57 PM, kelvin goodson
>> <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> yes, that's it - I have fixed it
>>>
>>> Kelvin.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:23 PM, kelvin goodson
>>
>>
>> Thanks Kelvin. I think we're looking good for Assembly again. I now
>> get the following...
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase) - fails dues to
>> externalAttachment elements for 10003
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase) - confidentiality.transport
>>
>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>
>> Both of these issues are caused by stricter policy validation and I'll
>> raise with OASIS.
>>
>
> FWIW here's what i see for the other test suites:
>
> Java CI Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8020_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8017_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8016_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 92, Failures: 5, Errors: 0, Skipped: 46
>
> Java CAA Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
>
> Policy Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.POL_4016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9023_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4015_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9022_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4033_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 118, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 59
>
> ...ant
>
Yep, I see the same. I've started looking at the JCI failures and a a
number of these are also policy related.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:57 PM, kelvin goodson
> <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>> yes, that's it - I have fixed it
>>
>> Kelvin.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:23 PM, kelvin goodson
>
>
> Thanks Kelvin. I think we're looking good for Assembly again. I now
> get the following...
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase) - fails dues to
> externalAttachment elements for 10003
> testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase) - confidentiality.transport
>
> Tests run: 134, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> Both of these issues are caused by stricter policy validation and I'll
> raise with OASIS.
>
FWIW here's what i see for the other test suites:
Java CI Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8020_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8017_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8016_TestCase)
Tests run: 92, Failures: 5, Errors: 0, Skipped: 46
Java CAA Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
Policy Failed tests:
testDummy(client.POL_4016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9023_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4015_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9022_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4033_TestCase)
Tests run: 118, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 59
...ant
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:57 PM, kelvin goodson
<ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> yes, that's it - I have fixed it
>
> Kelvin.
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:23 PM, kelvin goodson
Thanks Kelvin. I think we're looking good for Assembly again. I now
get the following...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase) - fails dues to
externalAttachment elements for 10003
testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase) - confidentiality.transport
Tests run: 134, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Both of these issues are caused by stricter policy validation and I'll
raise with OASIS.
Regards
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
yes, that's it - I have fixed it
Kelvin.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:23 PM, kelvin goodson
> <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>> The failure for 10003 seems to be because of model changes. I can
>> make the test work by adding
>> "http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912":externalAttachment
>> as valid content in the schema error message, which would seem to tie
>> up with the recent changes under TUSCANY-3630
>>
>> Kelvin.
>
> So there is a new externalAttachment element in the definitions.xml
> schema. If what you're saying is that this extra element is now being
> reported in the parser error and we need to catch up with that then I
> agree.
>
> Simon
>
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:23 PM, kelvin goodson
<ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> The failure for 10003 seems to be because of model changes. I can
> make the test work by adding
> "http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912":externalAttachment
> as valid content in the schema error message, which would seem to tie
> up with the recent changes under TUSCANY-3630
>
> Kelvin.
So there is a new externalAttachment element in the definitions.xml
schema. If what you're saying is that this extra element is now being
reported in the parser error and we need to catch up with that then I
agree.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
The failure for 10003 seems to be because of model changes. I can
make the test work by adding
"http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912":externalAttachment
as valid content in the schema error message, which would seem to tie
up with the recent changes under TUSCANY-3630
Kelvin.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:45 PM, kelvin goodson
<ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> I fixed 12007 and 8, 10003 is not in the same failure pattern so I
> haven't currently fixed that one.
> Kelvin.
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM, kelvin goodson
> <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Mike Edwards
>>>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Simon,
>>>>>
>>>>> More comments on the ASM testcases
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Morning folks. Just back off vacation so thought I would re-run the
>>>>>> otests to get a feel for the current state of play. I've posted what I
>>>>>> see below. From the recent comments on this thread I assume that at
>>>>>> least some of these new failures are related to either stricter policy
>>>>>> checking of new spec features. I'll have a crack at matching the
>>>>>> previous failure comments against this list. If someone already has
>>>>>> the list let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assembly
>>>>>> ========
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Results :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Failed tests:
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5044_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_10002_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5043_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 9, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 run clean for me. What problems do you see?
>>>>>
>>>>> ASM_8018 fails for me because the error message from Tuscany has been
>>>>> changed, so in this case the error properties file needs updating - I'll do
>>>>> that next.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours, Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 fail for me as a subsequent builder problem is
>>>> hiding the required error message.
>>>>
>>>> Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
>>>> at org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.write(CompositeProcessor.java:931)
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>> --
>>>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>>>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> And ASM_8018 is the same as 5 and 17.
>>>
>>> 12007, 12008, 1003 are failing because the format of the error
>>> messages that Tuscany is now generating
>>
>> I'll go fix these as I introduced the extra message element
>>>
>>> 10002 is failing due to an unresolved intent so I probably to do with
>>> tighter policy checking.
>>>
>>> I'll start by looking at the builder issue affecting 5, 17 and 18.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> --
>>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>>
>>
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
I fixed 12007 and 8, 10003 is not in the same failure pattern so I
haven't currently fixed that one.
Kelvin.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM, kelvin goodson
<ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Mike Edwards
>>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Simon,
>>>>
>>>> More comments on the ASM testcases
>>>>
>>>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Morning folks. Just back off vacation so thought I would re-run the
>>>>> otests to get a feel for the current state of play. I've posted what I
>>>>> see below. From the recent comments on this thread I assume that at
>>>>> least some of these new failures are related to either stricter policy
>>>>> checking of new spec features. I'll have a crack at matching the
>>>>> previous failure comments against this list. If someone already has
>>>>> the list let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Assembly
>>>>> ========
>>>>>
>>>>> Results :
>>>>>
>>>>> Failed tests:
>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5044_TestCase)
>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_10002_TestCase)
>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5043_TestCase)
>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
>>>>>
>>>>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 9, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 run clean for me. What problems do you see?
>>>>
>>>> ASM_8018 fails for me because the error message from Tuscany has been
>>>> changed, so in this case the error properties file needs updating - I'll do
>>>> that next.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yours, Mike.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 fail for me as a subsequent builder problem is
>>> hiding the required error message.
>>>
>>> Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
>>> at org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.write(CompositeProcessor.java:931)
>>>
>>> Simon
>>> --
>>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>>
>>
>> And ASM_8018 is the same as 5 and 17.
>>
>> 12007, 12008, 1003 are failing because the format of the error
>> messages that Tuscany is now generating
>
> I'll go fix these as I introduced the extra message element
>>
>> 10002 is failing due to an unresolved intent so I probably to do with
>> tighter policy checking.
>>
>> I'll start by looking at the builder issue affecting 5, 17 and 18.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> --
>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Mike Edwards
>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Simon,
>>>
>>> More comments on the ASM testcases
>>>
>>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Morning folks. Just back off vacation so thought I would re-run the
>>>> otests to get a feel for the current state of play. I've posted what I
>>>> see below. From the recent comments on this thread I assume that at
>>>> least some of these new failures are related to either stricter policy
>>>> checking of new spec features. I'll have a crack at matching the
>>>> previous failure comments against this list. If someone already has
>>>> the list let me know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assembly
>>>> ========
>>>>
>>>> Results :
>>>>
>>>> Failed tests:
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5044_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_10002_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5043_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
>>>>
>>>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 9, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 run clean for me. What problems do you see?
>>>
>>> ASM_8018 fails for me because the error message from Tuscany has been
>>> changed, so in this case the error properties file needs updating - I'll do
>>> that next.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yours, Mike.
>>>
>>
>> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 fail for me as a subsequent builder problem is
>> hiding the required error message.
>>
>> Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
>> at org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.write(CompositeProcessor.java:931)
>>
>> Simon
>> --
>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>
>
> And ASM_8018 is the same as 5 and 17.
>
> 12007, 12008, 1003 are failing because the format of the error
> messages that Tuscany is now generating
I'll go fix these as I introduced the extra message element
>
> 10002 is failing due to an unresolved intent so I probably to do with
> tighter policy checking.
>
> I'll start by looking at the builder issue affecting 5, 17 and 18.
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Mike Edwards
> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Simon,
>>
>> More comments on the ASM testcases
>>
>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>>
>>> Morning folks. Just back off vacation so thought I would re-run the
>>> otests to get a feel for the current state of play. I've posted what I
>>> see below. From the recent comments on this thread I assume that at
>>> least some of these new failures are related to either stricter policy
>>> checking of new spec features. I'll have a crack at matching the
>>> previous failure comments against this list. If someone already has
>>> the list let me know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Assembly
>>> ========
>>>
>>> Results :
>>>
>>> Failed tests:
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5044_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_10002_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5043_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
>>>
>>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 9, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>
>>
>>
>> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 run clean for me. What problems do you see?
>>
>> ASM_8018 fails for me because the error message from Tuscany has been
>> changed, so in this case the error properties file needs updating - I'll do
>> that next.
>>
>>
>> Yours, Mike.
>>
>
> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 fail for me as a subsequent builder problem is
> hiding the required error message.
>
> Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
> at org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.write(CompositeProcessor.java:931)
>
> Simon
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
And ASM_8018 is the same as 5 and 17.
12007, 12008, 1003 are failing because the format of the error
messages that Tuscany is now generating
10002 is failing due to an unresolved intent so I probably to do with
tighter policy checking.
I'll start by looking at the builder issue affecting 5, 17 and 18.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Mike Edwards
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simon,
>
> More comments on the ASM testcases
>
> Simon Laws wrote:
>>
>> Morning folks. Just back off vacation so thought I would re-run the
>> otests to get a feel for the current state of play. I've posted what I
>> see below. From the recent comments on this thread I assume that at
>> least some of these new failures are related to either stricter policy
>> checking of new spec features. I'll have a crack at matching the
>> previous failure comments against this list. If someone already has
>> the list let me know.
>>
>>
>> Assembly
>> ========
>>
>> Results :
>>
>> Failed tests:
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5044_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_10002_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5043_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
>>
>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 9, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>
>
>
> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 run clean for me. What problems do you see?
>
> ASM_8018 fails for me because the error message from Tuscany has been
> changed, so in this case the error properties file needs updating - I'll do
> that next.
>
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 fail for me as a subsequent builder problem is
hiding the required error message.
Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
at org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.write(CompositeProcessor.java:931)
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
Simon,
More comments on the ASM testcases
Simon Laws wrote:
> Morning folks. Just back off vacation so thought I would re-run the
> otests to get a feel for the current state of play. I've posted what I
> see below. From the recent comments on this thread I assume that at
> least some of these new failures are related to either stricter policy
> checking of new spec features. I'll have a crack at matching the
> previous failure comments against this list. If someone already has
> the list let me know.
>
>
> Assembly
> ========
>
> Results :
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.ASM_5044_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_10002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_5043_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 134, Failures: 9, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 run clean for me. What problems do you see?
ASM_8018 fails for me because the error message from Tuscany has been changed, so in this case the
error properties file needs updating - I'll do that next.
Yours, Mike.
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:26 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike Edwards
>> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ASM_5043
>>> ASM_5044
>>>
>>> should both be working now.
>>>
>>> These are 2 new testcases that required TUSCANY-3629 to be fixed - and then
>>> the testcase artifacts required tweaking as well to fix minor bugs.
>>>
>>> All changes now committed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yours, Mike.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Mike
>>
>> I can confirm that 5043 and 5044 now pass for me.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
> On the latest trunk and otest code i see the following for the assembly tests:
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 134, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> ...ant
>
Odd that you don't see 8005 a well.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike Edwards
> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ASM_5043
>> ASM_5044
>>
>> should both be working now.
>>
>> These are 2 new testcases that required TUSCANY-3629 to be fixed - and then
>> the testcase artifacts required tweaking as well to fix minor bugs.
>>
>> All changes now committed.
>>
>>
>> Yours, Mike.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks Mike
>
> I can confirm that 5043 and 5044 now pass for me.
>
> Simon
>
On the latest trunk and otest code i see the following for the assembly tests:
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.ASM_12006_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
Tests run: 134, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
...ant
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike Edwards
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ASM_5043
> ASM_5044
>
> should both be working now.
>
> These are 2 new testcases that required TUSCANY-3629 to be fixed - and then
> the testcase artifacts required tweaking as well to fix minor bugs.
>
> All changes now committed.
>
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
>
Thanks Mike
I can confirm that 5043 and 5044 now pass for me.
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
ASM_5043
ASM_5044
should both be working now.
These are 2 new testcases that required TUSCANY-3629 to be fixed - and then the testcase artifacts
required tweaking as well to fix minor bugs.
All changes now committed.
Yours, Mike.
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Morning folks. Just back off vacation so thought I would re-run the
otests to get a feel for the current state of play. I've posted what I
see below. From the recent comments on this thread I assume that at
least some of these new failures are related to either stricter policy
checking of new spec features. I'll have a crack at matching the
previous failure comments against this list. If someone already has
the list let me know.
Assembly
========
Results :
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.ASM_5044_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_10002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_5043_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
Tests run: 134, Failures: 9, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
JCA
===
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
JCI
===
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8003_TestCase)
Tests run: 78, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 39
Policy
======
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.POL_4016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9019_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_10002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9023_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4005_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4004_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4015_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9022_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4033_TestCase)
Tests run: 120, Failures: 13, Errors: 0, Skipped: 60
WS
==
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_bws.BWS_2007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_bws.BWS_2023_TestCase)
testDummy(client_bws.BWS_4006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_bws.BWS_4005_TestCase)
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
so processing the failure list against the commit log extract my
visual scan tells me the jca tests that have not been created or
edited since 23/6 are ...
3013
3014
8007
8011
10006
so I would assume that all the others require new function to comply,
and the set above could be in the same category, or are regressions.
Kelvin.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:07 AM, kelvin goodson
<ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> Here's an edited higlights list of mods to the oasis repo JCA tests
> between 23rd of June and today, so I guess we've probably never
> passed the newly added tests.
>
> Kelvin.
>
> Adding JCA_11010 JCA_11011 JCA_11012 JCA11013 JCA_11017
>
> Adding JCA_11009
>
> Adding JCA_11014, JCA_11015, JCA_11016
>
>
>
> Completion of JCA_7005, JCA_7006 testcases
>
> Initial versions of new testcases JCA_3013 and JCA_3014
>
> Initial versions of new testcases JCA_3013 and JCA_3014
>
> Adding testcase JCA_7005
>
> Adding testcase JCA_7004
>
> Adding testcase JCA_7003
>
> Updating 9016
>
> Updating 9015
>
> Adding testcases JCA_9007 JCA_9008 JCA_9009 JCA_9010 JCA_9011 JCA_9012 JCA_9013
>
> Adding testcases JCA_4008 JCA_7001 JCA_7002 JCA_9006
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:53 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've fixed an incorrect error message in the JCI tests and that suite
>>> all passes ok for me now, and the WS suite is passing cleanly too. For
>>> the others I'm seeing lots of fails in JCA and Policy as have already
>>> been posted to this thread, and down to just 4 fails in Assembly, two
>>> look like policy things (8014 and 12006) and two are interface
>>> matching (12007 and 12008). I'll go look at the interface matching
>>> ones.
>>>
>>
>> Both ASM 8014 and 12006 are failing as a result of stricter policy checking.
>>
>> 8014 is looking for confidentiality.transport, but we don't have a
>> policy set that satisfies this intent, and none of our bindings
>> currently have this intent in their mayProvides or alwaysProvides
>> attributes. I'm not sure which, if any, of the tuscany bindings are
>> using a confidential transport today. I guess the local flavor of
>> binding.sca would provide this inherently, but I'm not sure about the
>> remote case. The test case seems a little strict since implementing a
>> concrete policy for confidentiality.transport isn't required.
>>
>> 12006 is failing because we haven't implemented the externalAttachment
>> element that was added in POLICY-93 [1] / ASSEMBLY-122 [2]. We'll need
>> to add that to the model and update the policy runtime to handle it. I
>> can take a look at this.
>>
>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-93
>> [2] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-222
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
Here's an edited higlights list of mods to the oasis repo JCA tests
between 23rd of June and today, so I guess we've probably never
passed the newly added tests.
Kelvin.
Adding JCA_11010 JCA_11011 JCA_11012 JCA11013 JCA_11017
Adding JCA_11009
Adding JCA_11014, JCA_11015, JCA_11016
Completion of JCA_7005, JCA_7006 testcases
Initial versions of new testcases JCA_3013 and JCA_3014
Initial versions of new testcases JCA_3013 and JCA_3014
Adding testcase JCA_7005
Adding testcase JCA_7004
Adding testcase JCA_7003
Updating 9016
Updating 9015
Adding testcases JCA_9007 JCA_9008 JCA_9009 JCA_9010 JCA_9011 JCA_9012 JCA_9013
Adding testcases JCA_4008 JCA_7001 JCA_7002 JCA_9006
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:53 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've fixed an incorrect error message in the JCI tests and that suite
>> all passes ok for me now, and the WS suite is passing cleanly too. For
>> the others I'm seeing lots of fails in JCA and Policy as have already
>> been posted to this thread, and down to just 4 fails in Assembly, two
>> look like policy things (8014 and 12006) and two are interface
>> matching (12007 and 12008). I'll go look at the interface matching
>> ones.
>>
>
> Both ASM 8014 and 12006 are failing as a result of stricter policy checking.
>
> 8014 is looking for confidentiality.transport, but we don't have a
> policy set that satisfies this intent, and none of our bindings
> currently have this intent in their mayProvides or alwaysProvides
> attributes. I'm not sure which, if any, of the tuscany bindings are
> using a confidential transport today. I guess the local flavor of
> binding.sca would provide this inherently, but I'm not sure about the
> remote case. The test case seems a little strict since implementing a
> concrete policy for confidentiality.transport isn't required.
>
> 12006 is failing because we haven't implemented the externalAttachment
> element that was added in POLICY-93 [1] / ASSEMBLY-122 [2]. We'll need
> to add that to the model and update the policy runtime to handle it. I
> can take a look at this.
>
> [1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-93
> [2] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-222
>
> Brent
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:53 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've fixed an incorrect error message in the JCI tests and that suite
> all passes ok for me now, and the WS suite is passing cleanly too. For
> the others I'm seeing lots of fails in JCA and Policy as have already
> been posted to this thread, and down to just 4 fails in Assembly, two
> look like policy things (8014 and 12006) and two are interface
> matching (12007 and 12008). I'll go look at the interface matching
> ones.
>
Both ASM 8014 and 12006 are failing as a result of stricter policy checking.
8014 is looking for confidentiality.transport, but we don't have a
policy set that satisfies this intent, and none of our bindings
currently have this intent in their mayProvides or alwaysProvides
attributes. I'm not sure which, if any, of the tuscany bindings are
using a confidential transport today. I guess the local flavor of
binding.sca would provide this inherently, but I'm not sure about the
remote case. The test case seems a little strict since implementing a
concrete policy for confidentiality.transport isn't required.
12006 is failing because we haven't implemented the externalAttachment
element that was added in POLICY-93 [1] / ASSEMBLY-122 [2]. We'll need
to add that to the model and update the policy runtime to handle it. I
can take a look at this.
[1] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-93
[2] http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-222
Brent
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Mike Edwards
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> kelvin goodson wrote:
>>
>> I'm homing in on the 9008 failure, and someone may be able to help me
>> shortcut my understanding.
>>
>> The expected output of the test is ...
>>
>> config.output[0] = "JCA_9008 request service1
>> operation1
>> invoked getService" +
>> " expected IllegalArgumentException
>> received for 0..n ref" +
>> " expected IllegalArgumentException
>> received for invalid businessInterface" +
>> " expected IllegalArgumentException
>> received for invalid reference name" +
>> " expected null Service for unwired
>> 0..1 reference" +
>> " expected non-null Service for wired
>> 1..1 reference" +
>> " service2 operation1 invoked"
>> but I see deviation from this output here in Service1CCgetServiceImpl
>> at line 69
>>
>>
>> where the call to getService erroneously succeeds instead of entering
>> the catch block
>>
>> try {
>> componentContext.getService(Service2.class,
>> "requiredRef");
>> responseAccumulator += " did not get
>> IllegalArgumentException
>> for invalid businessInterface";
>> } catch ( IllegalArgumentException e ) {
>> responseAccumulator += " expected
>> IllegalArgumentException received
>> for invalid businessInterface";
>> } catch ( Exception e ) {
>> responseAccumulator += " other unexpected exception
>> received for
>> invalid businessInterface: " + e.toString();
>> } // end try
>>
>>
>> Kelvin.
>
> Kelvin,
>
> With all these API testcases, the responses are structured to indicate what
> was expected or unexpected about the outcome of each invocation of the
> relevant API method.
>
> OK, in this case componentContext.getService is being invoked to test what
> happens if it is invoked for a specific named reference but the supplied
> business interface does not match the interface declared for the reference -
> as it says in the comment:
>
> // JCA-TA-9013 - IllegalArgumentException thrown if named reference does not
> have the businessInterface specified
>
> So, "requiredRef" is declared as follows:
>
> @Reference
> public Service1 requiredRef; // 1..1 multiplicity
>
> ie it has a business interface "Service1".
>
> But the call to getService in this case supplies "Service2.class" as the
> business interface - deliberately incompatible with Service1.
>
> getService MUST notice that the business interfaces don't match and throw
> the expected IllegalArgumentException if they don't. Clearly, the
> getService implementation in Tuscany is not checking correctly at the
> moment!!
Indeed, so I've been trying to uderstand why that may be, but not yet
plumbed the depths to get to an understanding of what's changed.
Kelvin.
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
kelvin goodson wrote:
> I'm homing in on the 9008 failure, and someone may be able to help me
> shortcut my understanding.
>
> The expected output of the test is ...
>
> config.output[0] = "JCA_9008 request service1 operation1
> invoked getService" +
> " expected IllegalArgumentException
> received for 0..n ref" +
> " expected IllegalArgumentException
> received for invalid businessInterface" +
> " expected IllegalArgumentException
> received for invalid reference name" +
> " expected null Service for unwired
> 0..1 reference" +
> " expected non-null Service for wired
> 1..1 reference" +
> " service2 operation1 invoked"
> but I see deviation from this output here in Service1CCgetServiceImpl
> at line 69
>
>
> where the call to getService erroneously succeeds instead of entering
> the catch block
>
> try {
> componentContext.getService(Service2.class, "requiredRef");
> responseAccumulator += " did not get IllegalArgumentException
> for invalid businessInterface";
> } catch ( IllegalArgumentException e ) {
> responseAccumulator += " expected IllegalArgumentException received
> for invalid businessInterface";
> } catch ( Exception e ) {
> responseAccumulator += " other unexpected exception received for
> invalid businessInterface: " + e.toString();
> } // end try
>
>
> Kelvin.
Kelvin,
With all these API testcases, the responses are structured to indicate what was expected or
unexpected about the outcome of each invocation of the relevant API method.
OK, in this case componentContext.getService is being invoked to test what happens if it is invoked
for a specific named reference but the supplied business interface does not match the interface
declared for the reference - as it says in the comment:
// JCA-TA-9013 - IllegalArgumentException thrown if named reference does not have the
businessInterface specified
So, "requiredRef" is declared as follows:
@Reference
public Service1 requiredRef; // 1..1 multiplicity
ie it has a business interface "Service1".
But the call to getService in this case supplies "Service2.class" as the business interface -
deliberately incompatible with Service1.
getService MUST notice that the business interfaces don't match and throw the expected
IllegalArgumentException if they don't. Clearly, the getService implementation in Tuscany is not
checking correctly at the moment!!
Yours, Mike.
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
I'm homing in on the 9008 failure, and someone may be able to help me
shortcut my understanding.
The expected output of the test is ...
config.output[0] = "JCA_9008 request service1 operation1
invoked getService" +
" expected IllegalArgumentException
received for 0..n ref" +
" expected IllegalArgumentException
received for invalid businessInterface" +
" expected IllegalArgumentException
received for invalid reference name" +
" expected null Service for unwired
0..1 reference" +
" expected non-null Service for wired
1..1 reference" +
" service2 operation1 invoked"
but I see deviation from this output here in Service1CCgetServiceImpl
at line 69
where the call to getService erroneously succeeds instead of entering
the catch block
try {
componentContext.getService(Service2.class, "requiredRef");
responseAccumulator += " did not get IllegalArgumentException
for invalid businessInterface";
} catch ( IllegalArgumentException e ) {
responseAccumulator += " expected IllegalArgumentException received
for invalid businessInterface";
} catch ( Exception e ) {
responseAccumulator += " other unexpected exception received for
invalid businessInterface: " + e.toString();
} // end try
Kelvin.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:57 AM, kelvin goodson
<ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> After my second reboot of the morning I see a better picture on the
> JCA tests ...
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10006_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
>
> And 11017 wasn't amongst the failures
>
>
> This morning I ran the ASM tests and got a huge number of failures,
> which after a reboot reduced to just 3 IIRC. My environment seems
> quite fragile. A second run of the JCA tests gives the same results,
> so it doesn't seem to be that the after-effect issues are a direct
> result of running the tests themselves.
>
> Kelvin.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:53 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:15 AM, kelvin goodson
>> <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I'm trying to look into these, and currently seeing a 10 minute + hang
>>> on JCA_11017 with ...
>>>
>>
>> I don't see any hang in JCA_11017
>>
>> I've fixed an incorrect error message in the JCI tests and that suite
>> all passes ok for me now, and the WS suite is passing cleanly too. For
>> the others I'm seeing lots of fails in JCA and Policy as have already
>> been posted to this thread, and down to just 4 fails in Assembly, two
>> look like policy things (8014 and 12006) and two are interface
>> matching (12007 and 12008). I'll go look at the interface matching
>> ones.
>>
>> 8014 org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException:
>> [Composite: {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912},
>> Component: TestComponent2, Service: Service1] -
>> The intent {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}confidentiality.transport
>> associated with policy subject
>> (@24981262)Endpoint: URI =
>> TestComponent2#service-binding(Service1/Service1) has no matching
>> policy set
>>
>> 12006
>> org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Composite:
>> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}, Component:
>> TestComponent1, Service: Service1] - The intent
>> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/200903}Fred associated
>> with policy subject (@8374450)Endpoint: URI =
>> TestComponent1#service-binding(Service1/Service1) has no matching
>> policy set
>>
>> 12007
>> org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Composite:
>> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}, Component:
>> TestComponent1, Composite:
>> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/2009032}TestComposite5,
>> Component: TestComposite5TestComponent1] -
>> [ASM50004,JCA30002,JCI80001] Component service interface incompatible
>> with implementation service interface: Component =
>> TestComposite5TestComponent1 Service = Service1 Operations called
>> operation2 are not compatible Operation argument types source =
>> {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}int target =
>> {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}string don't match for output types
>>
>>
>> 12008
>> org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Composite:
>> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}, Component:
>> TEST_ASM_12008TestComponent1, Composite:
>> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/2009032}TestComposite5,
>> Component: TestComposite5TestComponent1] -
>> [ASM50004,JCA30002,JCI80001] Component service interface incompatible
>> with implementation service interface: Component =
>> TestComposite5TestComponent1 Service = Service1 Operations called
>> operation2 are not compatible Operation argument types source =
>> {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}int target =
>> {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}string don't match for output types
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
After my second reboot of the morning I see a better picture on the
JCA tests ...
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10006_TestCase)
Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
And 11017 wasn't amongst the failures
This morning I ran the ASM tests and got a huge number of failures,
which after a reboot reduced to just 3 IIRC. My environment seems
quite fragile. A second run of the JCA tests gives the same results,
so it doesn't seem to be that the after-effect issues are a direct
result of running the tests themselves.
Kelvin.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:53 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:15 AM, kelvin goodson
> <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'm trying to look into these, and currently seeing a 10 minute + hang
>> on JCA_11017 with ...
>>
>
> I don't see any hang in JCA_11017
>
> I've fixed an incorrect error message in the JCI tests and that suite
> all passes ok for me now, and the WS suite is passing cleanly too. For
> the others I'm seeing lots of fails in JCA and Policy as have already
> been posted to this thread, and down to just 4 fails in Assembly, two
> look like policy things (8014 and 12006) and two are interface
> matching (12007 and 12008). I'll go look at the interface matching
> ones.
>
> 8014 org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException:
> [Composite: {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912},
> Component: TestComponent2, Service: Service1] -
> The intent {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}confidentiality.transport
> associated with policy subject
> (@24981262)Endpoint: URI =
> TestComponent2#service-binding(Service1/Service1) has no matching
> policy set
>
> 12006
> org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Composite:
> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}, Component:
> TestComponent1, Service: Service1] - The intent
> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/200903}Fred associated
> with policy subject (@8374450)Endpoint: URI =
> TestComponent1#service-binding(Service1/Service1) has no matching
> policy set
>
> 12007
> org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Composite:
> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}, Component:
> TestComponent1, Composite:
> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/2009032}TestComposite5,
> Component: TestComposite5TestComponent1] -
> [ASM50004,JCA30002,JCI80001] Component service interface incompatible
> with implementation service interface: Component =
> TestComposite5TestComponent1 Service = Service1 Operations called
> operation2 are not compatible Operation argument types source =
> {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}int target =
> {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}string don't match for output types
>
>
> 12008
> org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Composite:
> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}, Component:
> TEST_ASM_12008TestComponent1, Composite:
> {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/2009032}TestComposite5,
> Component: TestComposite5TestComponent1] -
> [ASM50004,JCA30002,JCI80001] Component service interface incompatible
> with implementation service interface: Component =
> TestComposite5TestComponent1 Service = Service1 Operations called
> operation2 are not compatible Operation argument types source =
> {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}int target =
> {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}string don't match for output types
>
> ...ant
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:15 AM, kelvin goodson
<ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm trying to look into these, and currently seeing a 10 minute + hang
> on JCA_11017 with ...
>
I don't see any hang in JCA_11017
I've fixed an incorrect error message in the JCI tests and that suite
all passes ok for me now, and the WS suite is passing cleanly too. For
the others I'm seeing lots of fails in JCA and Policy as have already
been posted to this thread, and down to just 4 fails in Assembly, two
look like policy things (8014 and 12006) and two are interface
matching (12007 and 12008). I'll go look at the interface matching
ones.
8014 org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException:
[Composite: {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912},
Component: TestComponent2, Service: Service1] -
The intent {http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}confidentiality.transport
associated with policy subject
(@24981262)Endpoint: URI =
TestComponent2#service-binding(Service1/Service1) has no matching
policy set
12006
org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Composite:
{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}, Component:
TestComponent1, Service: Service1] - The intent
{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/200903}Fred associated
with policy subject (@8374450)Endpoint: URI =
TestComponent1#service-binding(Service1/Service1) has no matching
policy set
12007
org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Composite:
{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}, Component:
TestComponent1, Composite:
{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/2009032}TestComposite5,
Component: TestComposite5TestComponent1] -
[ASM50004,JCA30002,JCI80001] Component service interface incompatible
with implementation service interface: Component =
TestComposite5TestComponent1 Service = Service1 Operations called
operation2 are not compatible Operation argument types source =
{http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}int target =
{http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}string don't match for output types
12008
org.oasisopen.sca.ServiceRuntimeException: [Composite:
{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/sca/200912}, Component:
TEST_ASM_12008TestComponent1, Composite:
{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/opencsa/scatests/2009032}TestComposite5,
Component: TestComposite5TestComponent1] -
[ASM50004,JCA30002,JCI80001] Component service interface incompatible
with implementation service interface: Component =
TestComposite5TestComponent1 Service = Service1 Operations called
operation2 are not compatible Operation argument types source =
{http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}int target =
{http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}string don't match for output types
...ant
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by kelvin goodson <ke...@apache.org>.
I'm trying to look into these, and currently seeing a 10 minute + hang
on JCA_11017 with ...
Running client_javacaa.JCA_11017_TestCase
Implementation language set to: _POJO
19-Jul-2010 11:04:27 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeImpl start
INFO: Starting node: http://tuscany.apache.org/sca/1.1/nodes/default0
domain: default
19-Jul-2010 11:04:27 org.apache.tuscany.sca.node.impl.NodeFactoryImpl
loadContributions
INFO: Loading contribution:
file:/C:/Dev7/Oasis/newlayout/tuscany-java-caa-test-runner/../sca-java-caa/JCA_General_POJO/target/JCA_General_
OJO.zip
19-Jul-2010 11:04:28
org.apache.tuscany.sca.core.assembly.impl.EndpointRegistryImpl
addEndpoint
INFO: Add endpoint - (@25536960)Endpoint: URI =
TestClient/TestClient_0002TestClient#service-binding(TestInvocation/TestInvocation)
19-Jul-2010 11:04:28 org.apache.tuscany.sca.http.jetty.JettyLogger info
INFO: jetty-6.1.19
19-Jul-2010 11:04:28 org.apache.tuscany.sca.http.jetty.JettyLogger info
INFO: Started SelectChannelConnector@0.0.0.0:8080
19-Jul-2010 11:04:28 org.apache.tuscany.sca.http.jetty.JettyServer
addServletMapping
INFO: Added Servlet mapping: http://9.146.147.255:8080/TestClient/TestInvocation
19-Jul-2010 11:04:28
org.apache.tuscany.sca.core.assembly.impl.EndpointRegistryImpl
addEndpoint
INFO: Add endpoint - (@3279228)Endpoint: URI =
TestClient#service-binding(TestInvocation/TestInvocation)
19-Jul-2010 11:04:28
org.apache.tuscany.sca.core.assembly.impl.EndpointRegistryImpl
addEndpoint
INFO: Add endpoint - (@17615293)Endpoint: URI =
TEST_JCA_11017Component1#service-binding(Service1/Service1)
19-Jul-2010 11:04:28 org.apache.tuscany.sca.http.jetty.JettyServer
addServletMapping
INFO: Added Servlet mapping:
http://9.146.147.255:8080/TEST_JCA_11017Component2/Service1AsyncServer
19-Jul-2010 11:04:28
org.apache.tuscany.sca.core.assembly.impl.EndpointRegistryImpl
addEndpoint
INFO: Add endpoint - (@27502583)Endpoint: URI =
TEST_JCA_11017Component2#service-binding(Service1AsyncServer/Service1AsyncServer)
19-Jul-2010 11:04:28 org.apache.tuscany.sca.http.jetty.JettyServer
addServletMapping
INFO: Added Servlet mapping:
http://9.146.147.255:8080/TEST_JCA_11017Component1/reference1_asyncCallback
19-Jul-2010 11:04:28
org.apache.tuscany.sca.core.assembly.impl.EndpointRegistryImpl
addEndpoint
INFO: Add endpoint - (@2549170)Endpoint: URI =
TEST_JCA_11017Component1#service-binding(reference1_asyncCallback/reference1_asyncCallback)
Is anyone else seeing this. I will investigate.
Kelvin.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Just re-run them all again and this is what I see now....
>
>
> Assembly
> =======
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 132, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> JCA
> ===
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10006_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
>
> JCI
> ===
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 78, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 39
>
> Policy
> =====
>
> Failed tests:
> testDummy(client.POL_4007_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4009_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4016_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9019_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9021_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_10002_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9023_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4012_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9020_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4015_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_9022_TestCase)
> testDummy(client.POL_4033_TestCase)
>
> Tests run: 120, Failures: 15, Errors: 0, Skipped: 60
>
> WS
> ===
>
> All pass
>
>
> So some of the policy tests have been fixed but we've picked up a
> couple of failures in JCA and JCI
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Just re-run them all again and this is what I see now....
Assembly
=======
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.ASM_8014_TestCase)
Tests run: 132, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
JCA
===
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9016_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11009_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9006_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9010_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7004_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7005_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11015_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7002_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_8007_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9012_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7003_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11011_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_7001_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_9008_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11013_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_3014_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_11016_TestCase)
testDummy(client_javacaa.JCA_10006_TestCase)
Tests run: 214, Failures: 28, Errors: 0, Skipped: 107
JCI
===
Failed tests:
testDummy(client_javapojo.POJO_8012_TestCase)
Tests run: 78, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 39
Policy
=====
Failed tests:
testDummy(client.POL_4007_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4009_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4016_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9019_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9021_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_10001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_10002_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9023_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_3001_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4012_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9020_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4015_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_9022_TestCase)
testDummy(client.POL_4033_TestCase)
Tests run: 120, Failures: 15, Errors: 0, Skipped: 60
WS
===
All pass
So some of the policy tests have been fixed but we've picked up a
couple of failures in JCA and JCI
Regards
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With the updates I just pushed out and recent changes from oasis, we
> should be down to 5 failing policy tests:
>
> 3001 and 3002 fail because of TUSCANY-3370
> 10001 and 10002 fail because of TUSCANY-3381 (noListener intent not
> implemented.)
>
> 3019 is failing because we aren't finding a policy set for the SOAP
> intent at build time.
>
> Brent
>
Hey, nice work Brent.
The problem I have with 3001 and 3002 is that they both rely on the ws
binding being able to do something sensible with an
HTTP WSDL binding which, AFAIK, we don't at the moment and it's not
mandated by the OASIS WS spec that we should do so we need to talk
with OASIS to see if there is an alternative approach we can take
here.
As an aside we should raise an error in the WS binding if it's
configured to use WSDL bindings that we don't understand. This would
cause an exception to be raised for this test but it would be the
wrong type if exception.
As a longer term aside we could consider supporting an HTTP binding in
the ws binding but AFAIK no ones asking for it.
Re. TUSCANY-3370 I recently fixed the part about the wrong WSDL being
picked up so I'll add a comment to that effect.
Regards
Simon
--
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
Re: Current overall otest status
Posted by Brent Daniel <br...@gmail.com>.
With the updates I just pushed out and recent changes from oasis, we
should be down to 5 failing policy tests:
3001 and 3002 fail because of TUSCANY-3370
10001 and 10002 fail because of TUSCANY-3381 (noListener intent not
implemented.)
3019 is failing because we aren't finding a policy set for the SOAP
intent at build time.
Brent