Thanks for the explanation, I had a feeling it wouldn't be as simple as I was hoping it was. :-)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Atsushi Eno [mailto:atsushi...@veritas-vos-liberabit.com] > Sent: 25 March 2010 4:12 AM > To: Matt Dargavel > Cc: mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com > Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] [PATCH] WCF more detail on Destination Unreachable > > Thanks for the test, it cleared some things up :) > > So - first, I cannot apply your HttpRequestChannel change. The code you > removed was introduced to fix real problem regarding HTTP 4xx; when > HTTP 4xx is returned, the response stream is inaccessible and the channel > should not try to read it. > > Instead, the server code seems to have an issue that it should just > return 500. While it is set to 400 at HttpRequestContext with explicit > comment that "it is what .NET does", I was likely wrong by seeing > response from WebHttpBinding, which likely has special error handling. > > In general our fault handling is not well done yet and I'm seeing a > couple of issues to get correct fix there. Better fault handling is one > of the tasks on my stack, but it may be time to give priority than > ongoing bugfix as it's blocking your patch that will help my ongoing > work... > > Atsushi Eno > > > On 2010/03/24 19:41, Matt Dargavel wrote: > > Apologies for the wait- it's the time difference! :-) > > > > I've come up with a test for the DestinationUnreachable patch. When I > > was doing my testing I was using a combination of a .NET client and > > manually firing in requests using PuTTY and examining the reply. When I > > use a WCF Client in Mono the exception detail is currently lost in > > HttpRequestChannel, with a WebException being returned instead. > > > > The patch I've attached changes HttpRequestChannel so that 400+ errors > > are returned normally. This results in a FaultException being returned > > instead. The FaultException includes the extra details my previous > > patch added. > > > > Do you think this is acceptable and covers what you need? Hopefully > > you'll be able to add it to the NUnit tests fairly easily. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Matt. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Atsushi Eno [mailto:atsushi...@veritas-vos-liberabit.com] > >> Sent: 24 March 2010 6:18 AM > >> To: Matt Dargavel > >> Cc: mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com > >> Subject: Re: [Mono-dev] [PATCH] WCF more detail on Destination > > Unreachable > >> > >> Instead of waiting for your reply, I've rather committed the patch > > (with > >> a few change) and verify it later with a runnable repro. -> > >> DestinationUnreachableInfo.patch is done > >> > >> Atsushi Eno > >> > >> On 2010/03/24 14:35, Atsushi Eno wrote: > >>> I still couldn't reproduce the detailed error message. Let's please > > post > >>> a runnable repro case instead of code-less explanation ;) > >>> > >>> Atsushi Eno > >>> > >>> On 2010/03/23 22:38, Matt Dargavel wrote: > >>> > >>>> You can reproduce it by requesting an operation that doesn't exist. > > (It > >>>> was happening before I implemented the two Service Contracts on one > > end > >>>> point change as the wrong channel dispatcher was getting the > > request.) > >>>> So I should be able to write a test case for that... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Atsushi Eno [mailto:atsushi...@veritas-vos-liberabit.com] > >>>>> Sent: 23 March 2010 12:57 PM > >>>>> To: Matt Dargavel > >>>>> Cc: mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com > >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] WCF more detail on Destination Unreachable > >>>>> > >>>>> It's looking fine, but how did you check your change? (I know it > > could > >>>>> happen not always reproducible, so that's okay if it's not really > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> always > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> reproducible.) > >>>>> > >>>>> BTW I thank a lot for your properties change, that fixed a bug > > that > >>>>> annoyed me today ;-) > >>>>> > >>>>> Atsushi Eno > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2010/03/23 20:28, Matt Dargavel wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> A patch to return more detail when an endpoint / operation isn't > >>>>>> found. Not sure if you'll want to apply this, but it helped in > > some > >>>>>> service debugging I was doing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Matt. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Mono-devel-list mailing list > >>> Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com > >>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > _______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list