On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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

I'll go fix these as I introduced the extra message element
>
> 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