Bug 152754 - Infinite loop at BP2202 when validating WSDLs with cross imports
Summary: Infinite loop at BP2202 when validating WSDLs with cross imports
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: WTP Webservices
Classification: WebTools
Component: wst.wsi (show other bugs)
Version: 1.5   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: Future   Edit
Assignee: Project Inbox CLA
QA Contact: Keith Chong CLA
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: helpwanted
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-08-03 12:27 EDT by Jeffrey Liu CLA
Modified: 2010-07-20 11:34 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Sample WSDLs (45.26 KB, application/zip)
2006-08-03 12:29 EDT, Jeffrey Liu CLA
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jeffrey Liu CLA 2006-08-03 12:27:46 EDT
Build: WTP 1.5.1 0803

The WS-I validator will run into a infinite loop at BP2202 when trying to validate WSDLs with cross imports. I'll attach sample WSDLs.
Comment 1 Jeffrey Liu CLA 2006-08-03 12:29:31 EDT
Created attachment 47343 [details]
Sample WSDLs

Unzip these WSDLs/XSDs into a simple project and run validation on the project. The WS-I validator will run forever.
Comment 2 Jeffrey Liu CLA 2006-08-03 12:30:10 EDT
This is a very bad problem, we should fix it in 1.5.1. Changing priority to P2.
Comment 3 Lawrence Mandel CLA 2006-08-24 14:13:03 EDT
Jeff, I fixed a similar (or the same) problem with the WSDL validator. I believe the WS-I validator copied much of the WSDL validator's reader. I think a better approach here is to expose the WSDL model created by the WSDL validator to the WS-I test tools. This should solve this problem and improve the WS-I test tools performance by removing the requirement to parse the documents again.
Comment 4 Keith Chong CLA 2006-09-21 13:55:04 EDT
Not a mainstream scenario, and was a problem since 1.0.   Nobody found it until now.  We will defer this to 2.0.
Comment 5 David Williams CLA 2006-10-17 07:27:43 EDT
While a very bad problem, since Keith says "not main stream" and wants to defer it to 2.0, I assume "major" better captures the severity. (we should fix critical's in maintenance, if we can do so safely). 

Please correct if I have misunderstood. 

Comment 6 John Lanuti CLA 2007-06-12 09:42:53 EDT
Looks like this can be deferred to maintenance stream.
Comment 7 David Carver CLA 2008-07-08 15:30:36 EDT
Maintaince came and went, any possibility of getting this addressed.   These situations are more main stream than people realize.
Comment 8 Valentin Baciu CLA 2008-07-08 16:05:46 EDT
Dave, this bug is marked as helpwanted: please feel free to contribute a patch. 

Once planning for the next major release starts you can propose re-vamping the WS-I validation tools as a plan item (as you mentioned on your blog and evident by looking at my bugzilla inbox :-)). At this time time though I cannot make any committments because there are many other things needing attention and time and resources are scarce.
Comment 9 David Carver CLA 2008-07-08 16:15:55 EDT
(In reply to comment #8)
> Dave, this bug is marked as helpwanted: please feel free to contribute a patch. 
> 
> Once planning for the next major release starts you can propose re-vamping the
> WS-I validation tools as a plan item (as you mentioned on your blog and evident
> by looking at my bugzilla inbox :-)). At this time time though I cannot make
> any committments because there are many other things needing attention and time
> and resources are scarce.
> 

Yeah, understandable, which is why I'm willing to help clear out some of the 241 bugs that are sitting there waiting to be triaged.   I've verified some already, still have a lot to go through though.  but I hope that we can at least address the ones that already have patches in 3.1, it'll help all adopters make sure we have compliant tooling to build off of.