[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] More COmments on TestCase material...
Jacques and all, Attached is the latest iteration of the ebXML Abstract Test Suite, with changes reflecting this week's comments. Changes include: 1) Change of URN to 'testcase' , not 'semreq' 2) SetMessage now changed to 'PutMessage' 3) Kept 'Party' column, to reflect possibility that a party other than the test driver will be observable in the future. 4) Change 'XPath Expression' column heading to 'Test Message Expression' 5) Changed comparison operator in Test Message Expression from "=" to "==" for clarity 6) Separated "Verification" steps from "Correlation", "Put" and "Get" steps 7) Based upon discussion with Jacques and Monica this past week, I changed ErrorStatus names to either "FatalPrecondition" ( any test step other than a conformance test step), 'FatalTest' ( a step status result where conformance verification takes place ) or FatalOption ( a test step that tests an "optional" feature). It is assumed that the implementation of these three status results could be further broken down at run time into: FatalPrecondition.system ( send/receive or other system failure for the step ) FatalPrecondition.notApplicable (undetermined or normal failure of test step) FatalOption.system (send/receive or other system failure for the optional feature test step) FatalOption.notApplicable (undetermined or normal failure of the optional feature test step ) FatalTest.system ( send/receive or other system failure for the conformance test step ) FatalTest ( conformance test failure for the conformance test step ) I also sent Jeff Turpin an example XML Schema diagram illustrating how we could manipulate test message MIME headers using XML declarative syntax. Another possible point for discussion at the Monday conference call is actual implementation of a Test Harness, and the mechanism(s) that we might use for message template manipulation. Modified XPath, XUpdate and a message template language ( such as XSLT ) are three possible candidate technologies that could be used. I have not seen any modified XPath implementations for updating XML document templates. I have seen open source XUpdate implementations. I have also seen XSLT implementation of a template language would be easy to implement. I believe that an MS test driver does not necessarily have to only use only one of these technologies. It could be that a "template language" is the best way to implement MS testing... but XUpdate may be a better way to do Registry/Repository testing Your comments are welcome, Mike
Attachment:
ebxml_ms_20_abstract_tests.doc
Description: MS-Word document
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC