On 22 June 2015 at 19:16, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > A couple of new tests were added in http://svn.apache.org/r1686284. One > of these, testReservedExchangeRedeclaredSameType, verifies that amq.direct > can be redeclared using the correct type with passive set to false as well > as to true. > > I believe testing for declare of any standard exchange with passive=false > is incorrect. The spec states: > > Exchange names starting with "amq." are reserved for pre-declared > and standardized exchanges. The client MUST NOT attempt to create > an exchange starting with "amq.". > > A declare with passive=false is a request to create as far as the client > is concerned. The broker should in my view raise an error in that case even > if the exchange exists, since the client is doing something forbidden by > the spec. Certainly testing that the broker allows it seems wrong. > > If there is no disagreement, I will remove the line from the test. It will > still test that you can passively declare the exchange, as that is > completely legitimate. > > Hi Gordon
Commit r1686284 was mine. I'll amend I agree the test the passive=false portion of the test is erroneous, I had overlooked rule "reserved name" in the 0-10 spec, and was being influenced by looser words "This command creates an exchange if it does not already exist, and if the exchange exists, verifies that it is of the correct and expected class. " at the start of exchange.declare chapter. Kind regards, Keith. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
