Re: [ebxml-bp] RE: [ebBP] [ebxml-iic] Scripting of Test Cases (ProcessConcepts)

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Can you attach more explanation to this table in line with your question 
about associating guard conditions to specific transitions, and the use 
of a name?

Thanks.

> Webber: Jacques,
>  
> Dale and I talked about this last week - and creating a table of these 
> for the BPSS V2 specification.  We have specific names for these 
> boundary conditions.  The transport layer should signal the Outcome to 
> the named guard for the interchange condition test. Here's my first 
> take at this:
>  
>
> * Condition *
>
> 	
>
> * Outcome *
>
> 	
>
> * Notes *
>
> isConfirmReceived
>
> 	
>
> timeout
>
> 	
>
> false
>
> isRequestAcceptanceFailure
>
> 	
>
> invalid
>
> 	
>
> true
>
> isPositiveResponse
>
> 	
>
> protocol failure
>
> 	
>
> false
>
> isBusinessSuccess
>
> 	
>
> business problem
>
> 	
>
> false
>
>  
>
> 	
>
>  
>
> 	
>
>  
>
> isPositiveResponse
>
> 	
>
> succeed
>
> 	
>
> true
>
> isBusinessSuccess
>
> 	
>
> succeed
>
> 	
>
> true
>
> isConfirmReceived
>
> 	
>
> succeed
>
> 	
>
> true
>
>  
>
> 	
>
>  
>
> 	
>
>  
>
>  
> Also - I've attached the JPG of the model I'm using to verify BPSS V2.
>  
> The Interchange Profiles have various transport characteristics, and 
> again these tally with things like "timeout" - setting the boundary 
> conditions when this happens (see far right side of the model).
>  
> I also raised the issue that the guard condition should be associated 
> with an interchange to make it clear when to apply what.  Again the 
> model illustrates this in the main activity part of the diagram.