[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3642?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12895529#action_12895529
]
Brent Daniel commented on TUSCANY-3642:
---------------------------------------
Fixed in 982458. However, there is still an issue with the test case. The
externalAttachment for testPolicySet2 will not apply to the service because
"Joe" is not qualified with the "test" prefix. It inherits the default
namespace from the definitions.xml file, which is the sca namespace.
<externalAttachment policySets="test:PolicySet2"
attachTo="//sca:service[IntentRefs('Joe')]"/>
> Tuscany does not evaluate mutually exclusive intents correctly where one
> intent is Qualifiable
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TUSCANY-3642
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3642
> Project: Tuscany
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Java SCA Policy
> Affects Versions: Java-SCA-2.0-M5
> Reporter: Mike Edwards
> Assignee: Brent Daniel
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Java-SCA-2.0
>
>
> Where one intent is declared as being mutually exclusive with a second
> intent, but the second intent is a qualifiable intent and the exclusion
> statement names the root qualifiable intent rather than one of the qualified
> forms, then Tuscany does not flag the intents as "mutually exclusive" when
> the unqualified form of the intent appears on an element with the first
> intent.
> This was discovered with the recently updated form of OASIS testcase ASM_8014.
> This testcase defines an intent "Joe":
> <intent name="Joe" constrains="sca:binding" intentType="interaction"
> excludes="sca:confidentiality"/>
> note that this is exclusive of sca:confidentiality intent, which is
> qualifiable with confidentiality.transport and confidentiality.message the
> qualified forms.
> When a service is declared where the interface has sca:confidentiality
> applied and has test:Joe applied to the service element itself, Tuscany does
> not treat these two intents as mutually exclusive and operates incorrectly.
> Note that changing the exclude statement above to read
> "sca:confidentiality.transport" causes Tuscany to spot the mutual exclusion
> and to raise an exception. So it appears as if Tuscany is converting the
> unqualified form of the intent to the default qualified form before checking
> for mutual exclusion. This is incorrect - mutual exclusion when it uses the
> unqualified form of an intent means "excludes all forms of this intent -
> unqualified and all qualified versions".
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
