first pass will be .net client only: 'does wsdl.exe return an error on
import' against wsdl we have to hand.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jordahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 14:29
Subject: RE: .net testing


>
> Steve,
>
> If you set up something that can do client/server testing that would be
great.
> I have .NET on my machine, and I would run any and all tests in a suite
> if we had a set of services to deploy on .NET.
>
> I think this would be great - just like the httpunit tests, which
> we should run on 1.0 before we ship it.
>
> --
> Tom Jordahl
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 4:50 AM
> To: axis-dev
> Subject: .net testing
>
>
> Just saw the comments on .NET testing on the IRC chat...I'm in the UK and
> only get net access when sitting in the 802.11 footprint of friends'
houses.
>
> Ant 1.5 has a <wsdltodotnet> equivalent of <wsdl2java>; takes a wsdl file
> and generates a C# or VB equivalent, with dependendency checking. It needs
> wsdl.exe on the path; ant's own build script uses <available> to look for
it
> before running the appropriate unit test.
>
> Assuming wsdl.exe returns an error code if it cant convert a wsdl, it
would
> be easy to add new tests (under test/dotnet) to take the WSDL generated by
> various things and generate C# code; this would verify that wsdl.exe could
> handle it.
>
>
> To actually test interop takes more work; someone needs to write the
client
> side code to make sensible calls. That could be a secondary exercise.
>
> None of the gump systems have wsdl.exe on their path, so the Gump wouldnt
> test this stuff. I have a box with .NET 1.0, and another with .NET 1.1
> (VS.net "everett") to hand. I dunno if I can file bugreps on the axis
> account related to behaviour with an NDA covered beta release -I can of
> course file them on the MS web site.
>
> I'll see what I can knock up with wsdl importing tests in the next week or
> two.
>
> -steve
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to