We are just awaiting Geir to process our NDAs... or indeed verify that he has received them.
On 04/12/06, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry the tests are TCK. It looks like the specifics of the tests can only be discussed on a private channel btw members who have signed the NDA. It's kind of frustrating as only I have access to the TCK, and I am sure the situation will improve when martin gets access to the TCK. Regards, Rajith On 12/4/06, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 02/12/06, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > Some tests are failing as it throws MessageNotWriteableException when > trying > > to add properties. > > I'd love to know more about what tests are failing as we have quite a > lot of testing around this as I just recently added the ability to > throw the MNWExceptions for properties. > > > This exception is throw when _readableProperties is set to true in the > > AbstractJMSMessage. > > > > After some close inspection I see the following logic in the > > AbstractJMSMessage constructors > > > > _readableProperties = (_contentHeaderProperties != null); > > _readableMessage = data != null; > > > > Why is this done this way ? > > We need to determine when the message has arrived so that we can throw > the correct exception. the _readableProperties setting above is wrong. > I realised that later but haven't committed the change it should be > false. However I believe that this should only be the case for the > constructor that takes the ByteBuffer, as this is used to create a new > message. The other constructors are used for creating a message for > delivery. > > > The _readableMessage though should be as above as this method is only > called with a value for data when the message is being delivered. > Setting it to false should cause our existing Qpid test cases to fail. > > > > As a temorary messure I just set the above to properties to false and > now it > > results in more tests being passed. > > Does it not also result in some tests failing? > > > However I would like to understand the reason behind the above logic to > > provide a proper fix. > > > > Comments are appreciated. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rajith > > > > > > > -- > Martin Ritchie >
-- Martin Ritchie
