CTTF 7/10/2002: [ebxml-iic-conform] MS Level 2 & 3 test reqs

[Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net>]

Everyone,
Three cheers for the team!!!
 
As for Jacques feedback on combining/segregating assertions, I can live
with either way we go, but think we have to have a few parameters that
tell us whether we aggregate the assertion or break into separate test
cases - some has to do with the rigor required of the test.  Perhaps the
discriminator is a REQUIRED test requirement should not be aggregated
(not advocating, just citing an example) or aggregation only occurs if
the two elements and their result can be seen or evaluated.
 
Mike, Matt, and Jacques are the experts.  I am just the lacky (sp?).
 
Monica
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
r2.2.6a: re-wording: (consolidated with r2.2.7a) 
[precondition]: sending message with MessageOrder element, which is
first for a 
conversation ID 
[assertion]: REQUIRED: the sequenceNumber element must have value 0, 
and its Status attribute = "Reset". 
[MIKE] - DONE
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
[mm1: IN THIS CASE (AND OTHERS), DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO ASSERTIONS,
JUST LIKE WE HAVE
0...N CONDITIONS/PRECONDITIONS - CAN WE ACCOMMODATE THIS - AND WITH A
RESULT TO TRUE OR FALSE?]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
[MIKE3] - This is always the problem with "consolidating"... you "group"
assertions ( and expected results ) 
together, so if there is a failure in one part of the Assertion, you
fail the entire test.. So unless the test harness provides
a way to uncover exactly which part fails ( the sequence number not
equal to "0" or the status not equal to "reset" )
you cannot tell an implementer why their implementation failed, only
that it failed one or the other Assertion.
I am going to "decouple" the sequence number from the status, and split
each test into two tests. It is less
"pretty", but it removes any ambiguity. We have to be consistent on
this, and I haven't been in all cases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
 
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Matthew MacKenzie 
	Sent: Wed 7/10/2002 5:17 PM 
	To: Jacques Durand 
	Cc: 'ebxml-iic-conform@lists.oasis-open.org' 
	Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic-conform] MS Level 2 & 3 test reqs
	
	

	Jacques,
	
	I would be disappointed if the requirements didn't change after
my
	initial submission as the reason I submitted them was to get
them by a
	wider group of pros.  You guys have done an awesome job on the
editorial
	side.  It is quite gratifying to see such a large chunk of work
come
	together in such a short time, eh?!
	
	I have to apologize for not being as "gung ho" on the work items
the
	past couple of weeks.  I've been juggling this with a proposal
I'm doing
	for Regrep 3 which has a deadline similar to this one, only with
less
	participation.  I'll make it up by doing all of the nasty
merging work
	that needs to happen at the end of the process.  Maybe I'll
cheat and
	use my company's transformation tool :-)
	
	Mike: let me know when you consider the CVS copy golden.  I'll
get to
	work right away.
	
	-Matt
	
	On Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 11:06  AM, Jacques Durand wrote:
	
	> Of course, ebXMLGlobal (Matt) contribution to the MS Test Reqs
should
	> not be forgotten:
	> Matt provided the first cut at a list of Test Requirements,
hope he
	> does not mind the follow-up massaging :)
	>  
	> Once the test requirements are finalized, that is good enough
for MS TC
	> release,
	> but not yet for an MS Conformance test Suite: we will need to
add the
	> Test Cases definitions, and profiles definitions...
	> I think that for Version 0.1 (internal TC review) we don't
need all
	> test cases: just a representative sample.
	>  
	> While Mike / Matt finish-up the Test Reqs, I'll give a first
shot at
	> Test Cases and submit to the list (anyone interested too?)
	> I just want us to agree on the format of Test Cases, before
going
	> further.
	>  
	> Regards,
	>  
	> jacques.
	>  
	>  
	>
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Michael Kass [ mailto:michael.kass@nist.gov]
	> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:30 AM
	> To: Jacques Durand
	> Cc: 'ebxml-iic-conform@lists.oasis-open.org'
	> Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic-conform] MS Level 2 & 3 test reqs
	>
	> At 08:12 PM 7/9/2002 -0700, Jacques Durand wrote:
	>
	> Mike:
	>
	> Great milestone, you have been key to all this !
	> and thanks to all who gave comments.
	> I see the following cosmetic remaining changes before we
	> have something to submit to MS TC (do we all agree here?):
	>
	>
	>
	> [MIKE] - Thanks also to XML Global for providing the initial
test
	> requirements that
	> we have been massaging :)
	>
	>
	> - consolidate all these Levels in a single test req document
that
	> ignores the notion of levels, yet keeps the organization of
test reqs
	> by spec modules,
	> only for the sake of ease of browsing.
	> (levels/profiles would be defined separately, not needed for
MS TC
	> submission)
	>
	>
	>
	> [MIKE] - I agree.
	>
	>
	> - renumber each test req item (ID) (Matt can help on this he
said?
	> Note: if we use a pure sequential numbering, we should not
change them
	> later
	> as these will be referenced everywhere, and yet we should not
expect
	> them to remain
	> contiguous in the test req doc, as we may have to add/remove
some test
	> reqs later based
	> on feedback.)
	>
	>
	>
	> [MIKE] - I will leave the "merging/restructuring" of the 3
test
	> requirements documents and
	> XSL stylesheet to Matt, as he has volunteered to do the
resequencing of
	> the test requirements.
	>
	>
	> - remove from this final copy the "Coverage" attribute (would
go to the
	> annotated spec)
	>
	>
	>
	> [MIKE] - This is a simple stylesheet change, as far as
rendering in
	> HTML.  However, the "coverage"
	> attribute is a valuable piece of information we may want to
keep in the
	> original XML document...
	>
	>
	> Is that fine with everyone?
	>
	> Regards,
	>
	> jacques
	>
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Michael Kass [ mailto:michael.kass@nist.gov]
	> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:46 PM
	> To: Jacques Durand
	> Cc: 'ebxml-iic-conform@lists.oasis-open.org'
	> Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic-conform] MS Level 2 & 3 test reqs
	>
	> Jacques and all,
	>
	>     Here are the latest versions of levels 1,2 and 3 ebXML MS
	> Conformance
	> Testing Requirements.
	> Incorporated are changes ( and a few not ) based upon
comments.  Further
	> modifications based
	> upon discussion is possible ( but we seem to be iterating to a
	> conclusion :)
	>
	>     I am also  attaching comments to Monica's and Jacques
comments (
	> already sent out comments
	> for Michael Wang's post ).
	>
	>     All my comments begin with [MIKE3]
	>
	> Regards,
	> Mike
	>
	>
	--
	Matthew MacKenzie
	XML Global R&D
	PGP Key available upon request.
	
	
	----------------------------------------------------------------
	To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
	manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>