Hai,
A modified version of the test is included in the test list.
Regards
James
--------------------------------------------------
James Jose
Messaging Clients Team, WMQDDC
IBM Software Labs, India
Direct: 91-80- 25094331 Ext :2331
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| John Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22/02/2005 21:52
|
|
Having looked into this further I stick by my first statement. The testing we did in te other verssion of the method is now in place however, it does not fully test the very complex scenario which the test is attempting.
I would rather we concentrate on de/serialisation issues and issues related to unsupported types etc. than rather complex user error issues. For now the doc and slightly upgraded testing is enough
| Roshan Weerasuriya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22/02/2005 14:46
|
|
hi John,
>This test attempts to set the same attribute in a headerblock element
>twice.
If the user attempt to add same attribute the method "createAttribute()"
will return NULL for all duplicate additions. I see this check in the
code.
Roshan
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 13:50 +0000, John Hawkins wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> this tests fails today. This test attempts to set the same attribute
> in a headerblock element twice. this is not allowed. Today we do no
> checking to see if it has already been set and thus we pass bad
> XMLfrom client to server.
>
> I'm not prepared to do the checking in the IHeaderBlock class to
> ensure that it checks before sending the msg over the wire. When e.g
> WAS sees the malformed message it returns back a good fault message
> saying what went wrong. i.e. the server in this case is checking. I
> suggest we document to the user what we have decided and then consider
> improving the object model so that we centralise this sort of checking
> in a later release.
>
> I'll do it now but any comments are welcome.
>
>
> Not sure what to do about the test though. Can we remove it from the
> list but kep the test as it is a valid test if we supplied that level
> of function ?
>
>
> regards,
> John.
