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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:53 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> 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 >> >
