Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
#2410 closed defect (fixed)
create tests for SOS Server
| Reported by: | tomkralidis | Owned by: | tomkralidis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 5.2 release |
| Component: | msautotest | Version: | svn-trunk (development) |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | nsavard, assefa, cplist |
Description
SOS Server does not have any tests in msautotest/wxs/ .
Normand, I'll commit to getting an intial testsuite up. Does msautotest support POST requests in any way?
Change History (10)
comment:1 by , 16 years ago
| Summary: | create tests SOS Server → create tests for SOS Server |
|---|
comment:2 by , 16 years ago
comment:3 by , 16 years ago
Normand: thanks for the info. SOS Server supports GET (which we can emulate via the command line QUERY_STRING=...), and POST, where an XML document is sent instead of KVP. WFS Server supports POST also. But I don't see any post tests in msautotest/wxs/wfs*.map.
Is there any way we can emulate POST requests from msautotest? I think this would be vital, as the GET and POST interfaces of SOS Server (and WFS Server) are different.
follow-up: 5 comment:4 by , 16 years ago
Added in r7096 for GET requests.
Normand: can you verify all is done everything correctly when you have a chance?
follow-up: 6 comment:5 by , 16 years ago
Replying to tomkralidis:
Added in r7096 for GET requests.
Normand: can you verify all is done everything correctly when you have a chance?
Tom, yes I'll verify.
follow-up: 7 comment:6 by , 16 years ago
Replying to nsavard:
Replying to tomkralidis:
Added in r7096 for GET requests.
Normand: can you verify all is done everything correctly when you have a chance?
Tom, yes I'll verify.
Tom, I ran the tests against MS 5.1-dev and all of them succeeded. There are some glitches in file naming that I need to correct for instance when you issue a GetCapabilities with an higher version number there is no exception generated. The capabilities document nearest to the requested version is returned which is correct. The file name should be changed from sos_se3.xml to something like sos_cap0.xml.
Just to check, do the tests were made for the next version (5.2)? I'm asking that because I also ran the tests against MS 5.0.0 and all of them failed. The main reasons for the failures are the version number (0.1.2 instead of 1.0.0) and the presence of the "use" attribute which value is "required" or "optional".
follow-up: 8 comment:7 by , 16 years ago
Replying to nsavard:
Replying to nsavard:
Replying to tomkralidis:
Added in r7096 for GET requests.
Normand: can you verify all is done everything correctly when you have a chance?
Tom, yes I'll verify.
Tom, I ran the tests against MS 5.1-dev and all of them succeeded. There are some glitches in file naming that I need to correct for instance when you issue a GetCapabilities with an higher version number there is no exception generated. The capabilities document nearest to the requested version is returned which is correct. The file name should be changed from sos_se3.xml to something like sos_cap0.xml.
OK -- feel free to correct these as needed.
Just to check, do the tests were made for the next version (5.2)? I'm asking that because I also ran the tests against MS 5.0.0 and all of them failed. The main reasons for the failures are the version number (0.1.2 instead of 1.0.0) and the presence of the "use" attribute which value is "required" or "optional".
Yes, these apply to 5.2. The reason is because there are some major changes we are applying for SOS 1.0.0 and OM 1.0.0 support. Is this an issue?
follow-up: 9 comment:8 by , 16 years ago
Replying to tomkralidis:
Replying to nsavard:
Replying to nsavard:
Replying to tomkralidis:
Added in r7096 for GET requests.
Normand: can you verify all is done everything correctly when you have a chance?
Tom, yes I'll verify.
Tom, I ran the tests against MS 5.1-dev and all of them succeeded. There are some glitches in file naming that I need to correct for instance when you issue a GetCapabilities with an higher version number there is no exception generated. The capabilities document nearest to the requested version is returned which is correct. The file name should be changed from sos_se3.xml to something like sos_cap0.xml.
OK -- feel free to correct these as needed.
Just to check, do the tests were made for the next version (5.2)? I'm asking that because I also ran the tests against MS 5.0.0 and all of them failed. The main reasons for the failures are the version number (0.1.2 instead of 1.0.0) and the presence of the "use" attribute which value is "required" or "optional".
Yes, these apply to 5.2. The reason is because there are some major changes we are applying for SOS 1.0.0 and OM 1.0.0 support. Is this an issue?
No I don't think that there is any rule that stop us from adding tests at a specific version.
comment:9 by , 16 years ago
Replying to nsavard:
Replying to tomkralidis:
Replying to nsavard:
Replying to nsavard:
Replying to tomkralidis:
Added in r7096 for GET requests.
Normand: can you verify all is done everything correctly when you have a chance?
Tom, yes I'll verify.
Tom, I verified the SOS tests. I made the necessary corrections. All tests are correct.
comment:10 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Replying to tomkralidis:
Tom, there is no such thing as get and post in msautotest, everything works at the command line.