OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-iic-interop message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic-interop] interop update

Title: interop update
Well thanks jacques,
    in that case here are my comments on the 0.40 document
Introduction 1 states conformance testing (should be interoperability correct ?)
It seems the document needs to have an interoperability definition and motivation statement.
The term is used everywhere but only defined in Appendix A (which BTW follows Appendix B ???) and properly differentiated from conformance.
I would specifically add a Pre Requesite heading section stipulating the conformance to have passed prior to running interop.
I was also thinking over the Test Service & Test Driver framework and wondering about
having the Test Service be initiated with ebXML messages itself and having notifications and events signalled via messages.
This has the advantage of keeping the Test Driver and Test Service separate and using ebXML messagging as the logging and tracing.
It also means we can configured the Test Service entirely through a message - with the test cases as payload. The conversation_ID with the Test Driver
determines the Test Case being referenced. With timeouts the Test Driver can determine test failure. So the Test Driver is both initiatior and logger of the test run, but the actuall testing occurs between candidate MSH's.
it seems we need a template, as the tests will be very similar and only certain tests will be excluded rather than different.
It seems more appropriate to list all tests and have a PreCondition table stating for what protocols it applies to.
That way all testers step through each Test Case and test if needed otherwise skip to next one.
Or alternatively write up the Test Cases in one section and make a table with checkmarks on which protocols apply to the Test Case.
Test Case 1.1 No payload basic exchange
Protocols [HTTP,SMTP]
Test Case 1.12 Synchronous Unsigned Acknowledgement  exchange
Protocols [HTTP]
I think with some more discussion and thought about the test framework - namely the test driver/test service we could more thoroughly
go through the test steps.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:14 AM
To: 'Eric VanLydegraf'
Cc: 'ebxml-iic-interop@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic-interop] interop update

Yes, latest draft is 0.4 you got by mail. Not posted yet on our site.
We need to review in particular Section 3:
- the detail of the test steps for each test case.
- the notion of having two "basic interop profiles", concretized by a test suite for HTTP,
and another test suite for SMTP. (no "option" inside a profile.)
- the content of these basic interop profiles (as drafted, they roughly match what remains
from the DGI tests, after removing (a) conformance tests, (b) optional tests, (c) specific tests like large payloads.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric VanLydegraf [mailto:ericv@kinzan.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 6:06 PM
To: 'Jacques Durand'; 'ebxml-iic-interop@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic-interop] interop update

Just to confirm 0.40 is the latest interop document ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 5:45 PM
To: 'ebxml-iic-interop@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [ebxml-iic-interop] interop update

Steve, Hatem, Eric:

Here is an incremental update of the Interop suite document, for your review
based on improvement we discussed in past conf calls as well as F-2-F.

- Section 1.2 (concept of operations) is expanded.

- References to third-party tests (here, DGI) has been removed, as this is a general, abstract test suite,
that will be used as a reference by third parties. Comparisons with UCC/DGI test suite will be done separately,
as we expect for other existing test suites (ECOM). (We'll need to do such "comparative evaluations"
if only as a basis for discussion when negotiating with these entities, so that they understand how "compliant"
they are with our tests, and also so that they can give feedback on what may be missing in ours.

- list of Actions of  Test Service (Section 2.2) is slightly updated (configurator, also the message sending behavior
of all these actions is the same whether the Test Service is associated or not with a Test Driver.)

- still need to refine the way a Test Driver will drive the test cases by directly invoking the Test Service "Initiator" action.

- only one interop profile test suite described here for HTTP (Section 3), based on Steve's list of test cases
 as we went through in F-2-F.
It is roughly equivalent to: { DGI, minus conformance tests, minus optional tests, minus HTTP/S }
Detail of test cases (test steps, CPA...) still needs to borrow from Mike's material.
Still to discuss: idea that there is an interop profile for HTTP, another vfor SMTP. (see Section 3.3)




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC