You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> on 2009/11/09 17:45:12 UTC
Intent matching, was: Re: OASIS compliance test status
Hi,
I don't think we can simply check if the two set of intents are equal by
name. Please see previous discussions on [1]. For example,
Case 1:
reference: sca:clientAuthentication
service: sca:serverAuthentication
Case 2:
reference: tuscany:logging
service: (no logging)
Both cases should be valid wires from policy perspective. These validations
should be handled by the policy languages that define the
intents/policySets. We have defined [2] as the extension SPI and it needs to
be extended to add "validate" operations. I have started to code up the
PolicyValidator.
[1] http://osdir.com/ml/dev-tuscany.apache.org/2009-09/msg00358.html.
[2] org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.builder.PolicyBuilder
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:09 AM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:30 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Ok, a few more fixes in and down to...
>>>
>>> Failed tests:
>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
>>>
>>> Tests run: 124, Failures: 8, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>
>>> Am looking at 12007 now.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> Some of those looked familiar so i ran through them again with no
>> local fixes and after a bit of clean up this is what I get:
>>
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3367
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase) TUSCANY-3225
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase) TUSCANY-3205
>> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase) TUSCANY-3201
>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) .
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase) TUSCANY-3323
>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3335
>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) .
>>
>> Those JIRAs are for existing issues that we have open with the OASIS
>> test code (except TUSCANY-3225), so that leaves only 5026, 6016 and
>> 12007 left due to Tuscany issues. I'll have a look at 6016.
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> I've fixed 6016 in r833640, though i've not been paying close
> attention to all the recent policy framework changes - is there a
> better way for checking intent matching than whats done in r833640?
>
> ...ant
Re: Intent matching, was: Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have defined [2] as the extension SPI and it needs to
> be extended to add "validate" operations. I have started to code up the
> PolicyValidator.
>
How are you doing with that PolicyValidator code? There are several of
the CI tests (the 800x ones) that are failing as the runtime isn't
doing intent matching, i was going to add the the simple approach from
r833640 but its probably better to get the PolicyValidator doing it
properly.
...ant
Re: Intent matching, was: Re: OASIS compliance test status
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
No i didnt think so either which is why i emailed about it, as i
couldn't find any code like the PolicyValidator.
...ant
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think we can simply check if the two set of intents are equal by
> name. Please see previous discussions on [1]. For example,
>
> Case 1:
> reference: sca:clientAuthentication
> service: sca:serverAuthentication
>
> Case 2:
> reference: tuscany:logging
> service: (no logging)
>
> Both cases should be valid wires from policy perspective. These validations
> should be handled by the policy languages that define the
> intents/policySets. We have defined [2] as the extension SPI and it needs to
> be extended to add "validate" operations. I have started to code up the
> PolicyValidator.
>
> [1] http://osdir.com/ml/dev-tuscany.apache.org/2009-09/msg00358.html.
> [2] org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.builder.PolicyBuilder
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:09 AM
> To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: OASIS compliance test status
>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:30 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, a few more fixes in and down to...
>>>>
>>>> Failed tests:
>>>> testDummy(client.BaseJAXWSTestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase)
>>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase)
>>>>
>>>> Tests run: 124, Failures: 8, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>
>>>> Am looking at 12007 now.
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some of those looked familiar so i ran through them again with no
>>> local fixes and after a bit of clean up this is what I get:
>>>
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3367
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5026_TestCase) TUSCANY-3225
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5033_TestCase) TUSCANY-3205
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_5034_TestCase) TUSCANY-3201
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_6016_TestCase) .
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8004_TestCase) TUSCANY-3323
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase) TUSCANY-3335
>>> testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase) .
>>>
>>> Those JIRAs are for existing issues that we have open with the OASIS
>>> test code (except TUSCANY-3225), so that leaves only 5026, 6016 and
>>> 12007 left due to Tuscany issues. I'll have a look at 6016.
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>
>> I've fixed 6016 in r833640, though i've not been paying close
>> attention to all the recent policy framework changes - is there a
>> better way for checking intent matching than whats done in r833640?
>>
>> ...ant
>
>