On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Mike Edwards
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Simon,
>>
>> More comments on the ASM testcases
>>
>> Simon Laws wrote:
>>>
>>> Morning folks. Just back off vacation so thought I would re-run the
>>> otests to get a feel for the current state of play. I've posted what I
>>> see below. From the recent comments on this thread I assume that at
>>> least some of these new failures are related to either stricter policy
>>> checking of new spec features. I'll have a crack at matching the
>>> previous failure comments against this list. If someone already has
>>> the list let me know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Assembly
>>> ========
>>>
>>> Results :
>>>
>>> Failed tests:
>>>  testDummy(client.ASM_5044_TestCase)
>>>  testDummy(client.ASM_8005_TestCase)
>>>  testDummy(client.ASM_12007_TestCase)
>>>  testDummy(client.ASM_10002_TestCase)
>>>  testDummy(client.ASM_10003_TestCase)
>>>  testDummy(client.ASM_12008_TestCase)
>>>  testDummy(client.ASM_5043_TestCase)
>>>  testDummy(client.ASM_8017_TestCase)
>>>  testDummy(client.ASM_8018_TestCase)
>>>
>>> Tests run: 134, Failures: 9, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>
>>
>>
>> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 run clean for me.  What problems do you see?
>>
>> ASM_8018 fails for me because the error message from Tuscany has been
>> changed, so in this case the error properties file needs updating - I'll do
>> that next.
>>
>>
>> Yours,  Mike.
>>
>
> ASM_8005 & ASM_8017 fail for me as a subsequent builder problem is
> hiding the required error message.
>
> Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
>        at 
> org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.write(CompositeProcessor.java:931)
>
> Simon
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>

And ASM_8018 is the same as 5 and 17.

12007, 12008, 1003 are failing because the format of the error
messages that Tuscany is now generating

10002 is failing due to an unresolved intent so I probably to do with
tighter policy checking.

I'll start by looking at the builder issue affecting 5, 17 and 18.

Simon

-- 
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com

Reply via email to