282797 - Underscores in WSDL type element names not translated from javascript

Status: RESOLVED EXPIRED

(Core Graveyard :: Web Services, defect)

Description

[Mark B. Elrod]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

Here is an example:

WSDL type is defined as:

<xsd:complexType name="TransactionBase">
       <xsd:all>
              <xsd:element name="tx_foo" type="xsd:string" />
      </xsd:all>
</xsd:complexType>


Javascript is:

var transaction_base = new TransactionBase();
transaction_base.tx_foo= "test";

Resulting SOAP message will have:

<tx_foo xsi:type="xs:string">undefined</tx_foo>


BUT if you change name to "foo" you get

WSDL type is defined as:

<xsd:complexType name="TransactionBase">
       <xsd:all>
              <xsd:element name="foo" type="xsd:string" />
      </xsd:all>
</xsd:complexType>

Javascript is:

var transaction_base = new TransactionBase();
transaction_base.foo= "test";

Resulting SOAP message:

<foo xsi:type="xs:string">test</foo> 

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. create wsdl complex type with element name containing underscores
2. try to use wsdl for accessing webservice
3.

Comment 1

[Mark B. Elrod]

Attachment: A wsdl which exhibits the problem

This WSDL along with the example javascript shows the problem I am having. In
order to see the problem you will need to look at the generated soap envelope
thru either a proxy server or the dump that is made to the commandline in a
debug build.

Comment 2

[Mark B. Elrod]

Attachment: html/javascript example for use with attached WSDL

This html/javascript along with the example WSDL shows the problem I am having.
In order to see the problem you will need to look at the generated soap
envelope thru either a proxy server or the dump that is made to the commandline
in a debug build.

Comment 3

[Mark B. Elrod]

I have been trying to track this down through debugging and so far it looks like
the translation layer between the Javascript and the C world is where things are
going wrong. Things are pretty complex and I am having to learn the architecture
as I go here but it appears the VARIANT that the SOAP stuff gets already has
screwed up values in it. This would indicate that the error is in the initial
creation of the VARIANT.

Comment 4

[Mark B. Elrod]

It appears that this bug is related to #280283. However, there is no
documentation  that I can find which tells you that you need to replace some
characters with encoded sequences. Is there a way to actually discover what
names the WSDL expects for the parameters passed in?

Comment 5

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Comment 6

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.