[ebxml-iic] RE: sample 3 test cases

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com>]

Mike:

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kass [mailto:michael.kass@nist.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:12 PM
To: Jacques Durand
Cc: 'ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: sample 3 test cases

Jacques,

   This "timeout period" is something that we need to integrate into our
Test Driver.  I was wondering if the CPA as defined would provide enough
information to the Test Driver ( assuming that it parses some "base" CPA
( or "mini-cpa" for configuration ) to determine what that "timeout period" should be before
checking the message queue ( or some persistent storage structure ).
   Will the "base CPA" contain all of the required information for the Test Driver
to compute its own "timeout period" before checking for received messages, or
will we have to assign some arbitrary value? 
[Jacques Durand]  I think it is better to have that as a testcase-specific configuration parameter...

this is really a test driver control issue, only meaningful to the test driver, and outside the scope of the CPA .

Maybe in the "operating party" column, we could specify some config parameters for the

operator of this test step, in addition to the operator name (here "TestDriver"), e.g. "Timeout=60" (in seconds).

The default value could be given at the beginning of the test suite, in configuration parameters: e.g. "DefaultTimeout=120".

 1)   Regarding your other comments for the 3 abstract tests.. I agree that <Condition>
should be changed to <Precondition>.  It has a more direct meaning in a testing sense.

2)   I will fix the typos on the "quotes"   

3)   Regarding either :
  (a) Using predifined CPAs for the "configurator" action, or 
  (b) using CPA "templates" and manipulating them like any other message content...

I would favor (b) simply for the expediency.  Or at least, I think that we should leave that possibility open in our implementation
design.  That way, if the number of CPA templates becomes cumbersome, we could treat the CPA
as just another payload, and manipulate that XML payload template content the same way we would manipulate
an XML payload template for say  ... ebXML Registry testing.  

[Jacques Durand]  I would also try to avoid using Configurator action.... . (Configurator action assumes the MSH is

capable to dynamically handle new CPAs, which may complicate things API-wise, may not be true of all MSH, etc.)

But we may still assume that all the CPAs we need are in reasonable number and pre-installed / accessible...

(that would be the simplest solution) Only in case there are too many of these, (or too many combinations of

CPA attributes to consider in our test cases) we will have to specify how to generate

non-preinstalled CPAs from a template - and that could just be an XPath assignment in a sub-operation, like for header manipulations. In that case only, we would need the Configurator, to deploy on a the MSH local to this Test Service.

But I'd say we might not need do that if we don't need more than 20 or 30 CPAs, which is still a reasonable

number of predefined CPAs...

 Comments?



Mike

   

At 11:57 AM 10/1/2002 -0700, Jacques Durand wrote:

Mike:

review of your 3 test cases - mostly details.
Note: should we set also some timeout parameter for each test case? or test step?
(e.g. when we count duplicates, and retries, we have to know when to stop waiting...)

regards,

Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kass [mailto:michael.kass@nist.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:10 AM
To: Jacques Durand; 'ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic] next call this Monday



To all,

    Here is XML representation of the 3 selected abstract tests. I will
document/comment this for a clearer
description.  This is for an initial look at structure and underlying
object model.

Mike