New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
wfs:wfs-1.1.0-Basic-GetFeature-tc4 -- checks look incorrect (wrong value) #96
Comments
The other issue with the "version" test is that its unclear which ExceptionReport should be given. For example, Geoserver support WFS 1.0.0, 1.1.0, and 2.0 If no I believe that ets-wfs11 assumes this is a WFS 1.1.0 exception. However, geoserver returns a WFS 2.0 exception. This looks the same (xml document content), however the namespaces are different. I believe the ets-wfs11 parser cannot handle these types of exceptions. `Validation error: cvc-elt.1.a: Cannot find the declaration of element 'ows:ExceptionReport'. 1 validation error detected.
You can see the namespace for this is Perhaps this test can be changed so it just checks that a document is returned with "ExceptionReport" in the text. |
This is very similar to #66 |
PR is here - #97 |
Thank you for providing the pull request. |
Just wanted to follow up on this and #97 Thanks a lot! |
@davidblasby The fix regarding the version is currently also a discussed issue in other test suites. So, @ghobona and @bpross-52n we should find a general solution how to tackle this problem consistently between all test suites. |
I have been running the test locally (localhost). However, you can try here (GeoServer); https://how2map.geocat.live/geoserver/ows?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=GetCapabilities (that doesn't have the CITE data in it) If a server ONLY supports WFS 1.1, I expect that the test would work. However, if it supports multiple version (i.e. 2.0) then I would expect the test to potentially fail (since it will likely be sending a 2.0 error). Geoserver returns a 2.0 error message, which doesn't validate in the test case. Looking at: https://cite.deegree.org/deegree-webservices-3.4.30/services/wfs110?service=WFS&request=GetFeature This returns a 1.0.0 Exception (should it be 1.1?):
However, for GS supports multiple versions (1.0, 1.1, and 2.0). If you don't put in a version, it defaults to the latest version for processing. You will eventually get a "version missing" error. This gives a missing I think the first should be giving a different error message (version missing) - but I can fix that later (if needed). However, that error message returned is a 2.0 error message (ows 1.1):
|
Regarding the version of the exception report:WFS 1.1 specification (OGC 04-094) references "Whiteside, Arliss (ed.), “OWS Common Implementation Specification, V0.3.0”, Test of fixUnfortunately, the tests are not executed with your provided endpoint. |
yes - if you ask for "version=1.1.0" you will get a 1.1.0 (ows 1.0.0) error. However, the problematic test doesn't include a 'version' so the error report version isn't clearly defined - i.e. should this return a WFS 1.0.0, 1.1.0, or 2.0 error? |
I updated the PR - see note there. Thanks a lot! |
Discussion during CITE team meeting 2022-01-26: |
I am looking at the wfs-1.1.0-Basic-GetFeature-tc4 tests and getting failures. However, I think my results are correct and the test case is incorrect.
service
request2 makes a "bad"
service
KVP request:https://github.com/opengeospatial/ets-wfs11/blob/master/src/main/scripts/ctl/basic/GetFeature/GetFeature-GET.xml#L438
However, the check tests for a bad
request
https://github.com/opengeospatial/ets-wfs11/blob/master/src/main/scripts/ctl/basic/GetFeature/GetFeature-GET.xml#L525
This should be "service"
version
Likewise, for request3,
version
is bad;https://github.com/opengeospatial/ets-wfs11/blob/master/src/main/scripts/ctl/basic/GetFeature/GetFeature-GET.xml#L461
However, the check tests for a bad
request
https://github.com/opengeospatial/ets-wfs11/blob/master/src/main/scripts/ctl/basic/GetFeature/GetFeature-GET.xml#L545
This should be "version".
NOTE: request4 is correct (tests request)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: