Hi Simon, Noticed an issue, while we do itest to test the exception messages raised by the monitor during the validation, since we are still throwing all kind of exceptions from the code, for any kind of exception that's thrown the domain creation is stopped and hence we end-up in returning null for the domain.
Since we have the domain as null, it would not be possible for us to catch hold of the monitor and check if we have got the required message. I believe we need changes in the code, by either ways: 1. To create a monitor and ask the domain to make use of the same, so that we have a control over the monitor. OR 2. Allow the domain creation to complete, irrespective of any user-errors that are encountered during validation. Like to know your thoughts on this. Thanks. On 5/13/08, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Patches for TUSCANY-2277 are now available with the following changes: > > - The monitors now have access to all of the errors and warnings that are > raised during validation in the read, resolve and build phase of an SCA > composite. > - The code still throws all kind of exceptions as it was doing earlier, to > avoid a null pointer exception in furthur processing. > - All the exception/warning messages are customized using specified > resource bundle. Each module has its own resource bundle. > > Here are few work items that are currently in progress: > - itest for the validation errors. > - Identify which exceptions are safe to ignore, so that we allow the > processing to proceed furthur. This way we could catch hold of max possible > user-errors in one go. > > > On 5/6/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Hasan Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > So if plugins want to create their own monitor, what will happen in > > this > > > case? Now, the way plugins have control is, by looking at the > > messageID of > > > the problem, they can decide whether they want to change the behaviour > > > from > > > a warning to error, etc. > > > > > > regard > > > Hasan > > > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Simon Laws wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depending where you actually catch the exception you should be > > able to > > > > > continue on and process the next artifact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm, the idea with monitors is to allow the processing code to > > report > > > > warnings and continue or multiple errors per artifact for example. > > > > > > > > Not sure about how it'll work with exceptions? > > > > -- > > > > Jean-Sebastien > > > > > > > > > > > The suggestion is still that monitors get access to all the > > errors/warnings > > that the system generates for display to the user so you will be able to > > take the same approach. > > > > Simon > > > > > > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Ramkumar Ramalingam -- Thanks & Regards, Ramkumar Ramalingam
