Fault message in synchronous scenario

[Former Member]

I defined an integreationprocess with synchronous send step and an exception branch.

And I specified an exception for a fault message which I defined in the synchronous interface.

My problem is, that the exception is not triggered by application errors. The integrationprocess is canceled, although I defined an alternative way in exception branch. I can´t figure why exception isn´t triggered, but I have an assumption.

This is the inbound fault message from receiver:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>

<fault:AuthException xmlns:fault="urn:vwservices">

<fault:messageText>Session Token expired or not valid</fault:messageText>

</fault:AuthException>

But in interface mapping, when I execute a test run for fault message, the message looks like:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<ns0:AuthException xmlns:ns0="urn:vwservices">

<ns0:messageText/>

</ns0:AuthException>

The xml messages are different because of namespace. Is it the problem, why the exception isn´t triggered?

For this scenario I use a WSDL File from receiver system, which means that, I did not create the fault message myself.

Thanks for your help!

[stefan_grube]

I found this thread, maybe it is useful for you:

[stefan_grube]

> The xml messages are different because of namespace.

No, the namespaces are equal. But it seems the message text gets lost.

Make sure that the exception which is assigned to the exception branch is the same as in the send step.

[Former Member]

Sorry, I did not enter the text in test run.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<ns0:AuthException xmlns:ns0="urn:vwservices">

<ns0:messageText>Session Token expired or not valid</ns0:messageText>

</ns0:AuthException>

I just wanted to show the xml structure of the message interface.

[Former Member]

The name of the exception handler in the integrationprocess for the exception handler is arbitrary (chosen freely), or?

[stefan_grube]

> The name of the exception handler in the integrationprocess for the exception handler is arbitrary (chosen freely), or?

Yes, sure, but you have to assign exacty the same exception to the handler and the send step.

[Former Member]

Yes, I have assigned the same name.

I made a test with the system error.

Before testing I assigned my exception handler (the same as for application errors) in the send step under item "System Error".

Then I manipulated my message mapping, so that an system error will be created.

This szenario works fine. After system error the exception branch was executed.

I´m truly desperate, because the Application Error don´t work.