[Mono-dev] [PATCH] WCF more detail on Destination Unreachable

[Matt Dargavel]

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:atsushieno at veritas-vos-liberabit.com]
> Sent: 25 March 2010 4:12 AM
> To: Matt Dargavel
> Cc: mono-devel-list at 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:atsushieno at veritas-vos-liberabit.com]
> >> Sent: 24 March 2010 6:18 AM
> >> To: Matt Dargavel
> >> Cc: mono-devel-list at 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:atsushieno at veritas-vos-liberabit.com]
> >>>>> Sent: 23 March 2010 12:57 PM
> >>>>> To: Matt Dargavel
> >>>>> Cc: mono-devel-list at 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 at lists.ximian.com
> >>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >