Hello developers,
I attempted to implement the move of the uniqueID to the server side.
Naively, I attempted to set the generated results id as a header in the
response to the initial CALL_TEST service. Here is my code:
(from AbstractWebTestCaller.java)
private void addResultsIdHeaderToResponse(String theResultsId)
{
HttpServletResponse response =
this.webImplicitObjects.getHttpServletResponse();
response.addHeader(HttpServiceDefinition.TEST_ID_PARAM,
theResultsId);
}
Unfortunately, when I try to read this value on the client, it comes up as
null. It seems that the connection does not register any headers as being
set.
(From DefaultHttpClient:)
HttpURLConnection connection = callRunTest(theRequest);
String resultsId = getResultsIdFromHeader(connection);
GetResultsFromHeader expands to:
private String getResultsIdFromHeader(HttpURLConnection theConnection)
{
String resultsId =
theConnection.getHeaderField(HttpServiceDefinition.TEST_ID_PARAM);
if (resultsId == null)
{
throw new IllegalStateException();//I always get this
}
return resultsId;
}
I haven't worked much with headers, is either of these two code fragments
fundamentally flawed?
Cheers,
Nick
On 7/9/03 2:11 AM, "Christopher Lenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lesiecki Nicholas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> --- Christopher Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On a related note, we are now pretty much in a feature freeze until we
>>> branch out a CACTUS_15_BRANCH for maintenance. That will be done as soon
>>> as we release a beta of 1.5. Until then, we should not add the Test-ID
>>> functionality to CVS. We'll keep the already present UniqueGenerator,
>>> but I'd like to remove the code that adds it to the request etc. We can
>>> add it back later, but it'll probably look completely different anyway
>>> if we implement it as a cookie generated on the server side.
>>
>> Ok, I can rip this all out if you like. It *will* look completely different
>> once we move to the server. Again, I'd love for us to branch soon so I can
>> continue the work.
>
> Yes, we're a couple of days away from a beta and the branch now. If you
> don't have time to remove the unique ID references, I can probably do it
> today or tomorrow.
>
>> Regarding testing the functionality:
>>
>>> I don't think we can do very much to really test this. We need to look
>>> good and hard at the algorithm :-) There is currently only one potential
>>> situation where generated IDs might clash: when they are generated on
>>> the same machine (as identified by the IP-address) but on different JVMs
>>> at the same time (System.currentTimeMillis() yields the same value).
>>> This is pretty unlikely, and I think that by putting the identity hash
>>> code of the test case instance into the mix, the resulting IDs should
>>> never clash. As I noted a week or so ago, RMI uses
>>> new Object().hashCode()
>>> to get a host/JVM unique ID. If that works, our algorithm should be
>>> pretty damn safe :-)
>>
>> I think all these problems will disappear once we hit the server. All I
>> think we'll have to do is synchronize on the application context:
>>
>> synchronized(application){
>> count++;
>> }
>>
>> (where count is a static variable in some generator class.)
>>
>> That way each incoming test is guaranteed to have a different id with
>> respect to that application context. Since the server distributes the IDs,
>> there would be no need to id the clients specifically. We could start count
>> at System.currentTimeMillis() just to be on the safe side.
>
> Sounds good :-)
>
>> Of course, there may be problems with synching on the application context.
>
> I have no idea about that...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
