[jbossws-dev] Re: DII Implementation

Hi, is someone available to verify the test cases that should be passing: - http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbossws/stack/native/branches/dlofthouse/J... I have not been able to find a definitive guide as to how the Call API should be expected to operate other than the Javadoc itself which is a little vague. On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 12:52 +0100, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > Sorry my original description was slightly wrong, it is not the child of > soap:body that we expect to be called 'result' but the name of the > return parameter. > > I have created a Jira issue and put together a test case to demonstrate > the failure: - > > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBWS-1862 > > The Jira issue shows the response message being received by the client. > > The test case I am testing this with is here: - > > http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbossws/stack/native/branches/dlofthouse/J... > > [I don't expect all of these approaches to work but I wanted to test a > couple of different ways of performing the call.] > > The methods 'testUnconfiguredCall()', 'testConfiguredCall()' and > 'testPartlyConfiguredCall()' are all failing with the 'Cannot find child > element: result' error shown in the Jira issue. > > In my test case I have also created the method > 'testUnconfiguredCall_2()' to try and set the name of the return > parameter but that is failing with the error: - > > java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 1 > at > org.jboss.ws.core.jaxrpc.client.CallImpl.invokeInternal(CallImpl.java:536) > at org.jboss. > > ws.core.jaxrpc.client.CallImpl.invoke(CallImpl.java:277) > at > org.jboss.test.ws.jaxrpc.jbws1862.JBWS1862TestCase.testUnconfiguredCall_2(JBWS1862TestCase.java:92) > > This is because the OUT param is being incorrectly processed as an IN > param. > > I have been through the specifications but I am unable to find > conclusive information on how the Call interface should be used and > looking at the specifications some of this may even be stack specific. > > Would it be possible for one of you to have a look at my test case and > let me know which (if any) of the test scenarios we should actually > support. > > The customer has been trying to use the approach in > 'testUnconfiguredCall()' as that is what they were using in the code > they are porting but they are flexible to make alterations. >