Test runner (SwitchYardRunner) always validates the SY config model under test

[tadayosi]

Hello,

I noticed that currently there is no way of forcing SwitchYardRunner to eschew the validation of the config model specified in @SwitchYardTestCaseConfig annotation, in contrast to the switchyard-plugin (configure Mojo) which has the <validate> option to turn it off. I'm aware that it may be a workaround for that to use SwitchYardTestKit in the test methods and load the model with disabling validation programmatically, however I don't feel it's always handy.

This seeming lack of feature prohibits me from leveraging the following use case for SY test: I have a switchyard.xml, a part of which looks like below (note that the order of the options for File binding is relaxed and doesn't strictly comply with the XML Schema):

        <sca:reference name="routerToFile" promote="FirstServiceESB/FileRouterListener" multiplicity="1..1">
            <file:binding.file>
                <file:directory>${project.build.directory}/output</file:directory>
                <file:fileName>results.log</file:fileName>
                <file:autoCreate>true</file:autoCreate>
            </file:binding.file>
        </sca:reference>

I am sure this configuration can be build, deployed, and even run successfully on the SY server if the configure Mojo is set up as follows:

             <plugin>
                <groupId>org.switchyard</groupId>
                <artifactId>switchyard-plugin</artifactId>
                <configuration>
                    ...
                    <validate>false</validate>
                </configuration>

However, I only cannot make SY test cases for the configuration due to the constraints explained above, and get the following errors:

java.lang.RuntimeException: Model [org.switchyard.config.model.switchyard.v1.V1SwitchYardModel] is invalid: cvc-complex-type.2.4.a: Invalid content was found starting with element 'file:autoCreate'. One of '{"urn:switchyard-component-    camel-file:config:1.0":flatten, "urn:switchyard-component-camel-file:config:1.0":charset, "urn:switchyard-component-camel-file:config:1.0":consume, "urn:switchyard-component-camel-file:config:1.0":produce}' is expected.

For your reference, I'm attaching the sample project.

Is that by design?  Or can it be a valid feature request?  If it can be a feature request, I'll file a JIRA for it, and am also ready to contribute a patch

Please let me know your thoughts on this issue.

Thank you,

Tadayoshi

[tadayosi]

Any thoughts?  I've just gone ahead and created a feature request at [1], hoping it's a valid one:

[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/SWITCHYARD-1508

The motivation behind this request is that if there is no such feature available you are forced to strictly follow the order of binding component options because those options are defined as <sequence> in [2], which I feel is sometimes inconvenient or even impractical for binding components having many options, especially for users who prefer handwriting switchyard.xml.

[2] https://github.com/jboss-switchyard/components/blob/master/common/camel/src/main/resources/org/switchyard/component/camel/common/model/v1/camel-common-v1.xsd

[kcbabo]

I think the idea of allowing validation to be disabled is reasonable.  That said, I think it should default to true.  I see you have a pull request in which handles both, so we'll get it pushed up this week.  Thanks!

[kcbabo]

BTW, I don't think that disabling validation is a good idea in general, but I do agree that allowing users the flexibility to choose for themselves is a good thing.

[tadayosi]

Hi Keith,

Thank you for your comments and merging my pull request. I'd agree with you that abuse of disabling validation is not a good practice.

I might think the root cause for why disabling validation is sometimes felt needed is that most of the configuration options of gateway bindings defined in switchyard-components/common/camel/src/main/resources/org/switchyard/component/camel/common/model/v1/camel-common-v1.xsd are defined in <sequence> so we have to follow the order strictly when configuring the gateway bindings. If those options are defined in the XSD in a more relaxed way, then it will be much easier for users to have valid switchyard.xml files.

Tadayoshi