This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 88832 - XML Validation messages are not very user friendly
Summary: XML Validation messages are not very user friendly
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 93892
Alias: None
Product: soa
Classification: Unclassified
Component: BPEL Validation (show other bugs)
Version: 5.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: issues@soa
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-11-07 15:14 UTC by Michael Frisino
Modified: 2007-04-03 12:34 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Michael Frisino 2006-11-07 15:14:31 UTC
Several users have complained that the messages from the XML Validation
subsystem are not user friendly. Here is typical example:

SynchronousSample35/SynchronousSample35/src/newProcess.bpel:2,0
cvc-complex-type.2.4.b: The content of element 'process' is not complete. One of
'{"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":documentation,
WC[##other:"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/"],
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":extensions,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":import,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":partnerLinks,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":messageExchanges,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":variables,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":correlationSets,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":faultHandlers,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":eventHandlers,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":empty,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":invoke,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":receive,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":reply,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":assign,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":validate,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":wait,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":throw,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":rethrow,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":exit,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":flow,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":if,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":while,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":repeatUntil,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":sequence,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":pick,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":scope,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":compensate,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":compensateScope,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":forEach,
"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/":extensionActivity}' is
expected.

A request has been made to improve thesee messages. I am therefore entering this
RFE. However, I do not know if we can do anything to improve this situation
becuase the message content is not under our control. This message content comes
diretly from XML Validator that is invoked as part of the overall BPEL validation. 

At best we can consider some way to format such information better for
readability. Ideas?
Comment 1 Victoria Zhukovskaya 2007-02-07 15:06:26 UTC
Thid message is when bpel has no <sequence>

WinXP, NB5.5.1+ gavotte 070206+ JDK 1.6
Comment 2 kiran_bhumana 2007-03-06 20:05:04 UTC
One idea is that you can suggest that the file is invalid, because it has this.
Typically validation errors have two aspects. 
1) What is wrong in the current file?
2) What is correct and/or suggesting How it can be corrected?

I guess part 1) of this validation aspect is missing in the following.
Comment 3 Vladimir Yaroslavskiy 2007-04-03 12:34:46 UTC

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 93892 ***