Oops, you're right I missed that. I have updated it to use the length of the namespaces array, please check it.
BTW, do you have some sample signed SAML messages that I can add to our test suite to test that it finds the Ids correctly? --Sean Brent Putman wrote: >> The IdResolver should be modified to include this namespace URI in the array >> at >> line 164, and the code at line 266 should be updated to differentiate the 2 >> namespaces. >> >> > > Thanks for looking at this. With the above, I didn't mean to imply > those line references were the *only* things that needed to be changed, > however. I think (unfortunately) there are some hardcoded assumptions > about the length of that 'namespaces' array in the code between those > two line references. It's a bit hard for me to grok what the code is > trying to do, it's a bit convoluted, but: Isn't the idea essentially > that after the call to getEl() in getElementBySearching() the 'Element > [] els' array contains the resolved element in the slot (index) that > corresponds to the same index in the namespace array for the namespace > from which the ID attribute came? And the 'els' array is one slot > larger than the namespaces array, so that the last slot just means "no > namespace" (happens if the attribute local name is just "ID" , or "Id" > or "id", with some exceptions for namespace-qualified attribs that use > those). > > If so, then the code is now a little off - the array size references > need to be incremented, or even better, changed to be relative to the > length of the namespaces array (actually visible as static List > 'names'). Or something along those lines. > > See for example: > > Line 176 Element []els=new Element[6]; > > Line 230 elementIndex=(elementIndex<0) ? 5 : elementIndex; > > Line 236 index=(index<0) ? 5 : index; > > Line 250 index=5; > > Line 256 index=5; > > > The namespaces array did have length 5, now it has length 6 - so the > "no namespace" slot in the 'els' array (which should now have length 7) > would now be 6 , not 5. Again, it would seem to me to be better to make > this all relative to the size of the namespaces array in the first > place, not absolute. > > Those are just the things I see. I'm not completely clear on the search > algorithm, so don't take my word for it. > > Thanks, > Brent
