Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

soap client describe() resolves namespace cross references between schema #1014

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jul 23, 2018

Conversation

PaoloSarti
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

this PR adds support to cross references in namespaces between types from different schema.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jul 19, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.07%) to 93.34% when pulling 10eaae4 on MakeItApp:feature/describe-follows-namespaces into 7da88e1 on vpulim:master.

lib/wsdl.js Outdated
@@ -116,6 +117,12 @@ var Element = function(nsName, attrs, options) {
}
}
}
for (var schemaKey in schemaAttrs) {
var schemaMatch = /^xmlns:?(.*)$/.exec(schemaKey);
if (schemaMatch && schemaMatch[1] && schemaMatch) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

did you really want to check for schemaMatch twice here? 😄

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fixed :)

@@ -855,7 +862,9 @@ ElementElement.prototype.description = function(definitions, xmlns) {
if (type) {
type = splitQName(type);
var typeName = type.name,
ns = xmlns && xmlns[type.prefix] || definitions.xmlns[type.prefix],
ns = xmlns && xmlns[type.prefix] ||
(definitions.xmlns[type.prefix] !== undefined && this.schemaXmlns[type.prefix]) ||
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

when checking for !== undefined explicitly, we are aware that null would pass - is this intentional?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here I checked the presence or absence of the property, not its value. So yes, it was intentional to check only for undefined.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Anyway, I could change definitions.xmlns[type.prefix] !== undefined into definitions.xmlns[type.prefix]

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I checked the presence or absence of the property

good catch, I didn' t think of that... 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants