[ebxml-iic] RE: sample 3 test cases

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

Mike:

 

in-line. ([Jacques2]

   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".

[MIKE2] - It looks like there are many possible places to define test case specific parameters.  They could be defined
as attributes in the <TestCase> column ( or element for implementation ), the <TestStep> column/element, or the <PutMessage> or
<GetMessage> operations/elements.  Where to put them would depend upon the granularity at which you wish to define
such parameters ( parameter for the whole test case? for a single test step?  for a single operation? )   I would think that
Test Driver configuration would be fairly static for test cases, and for that reason I would suggest making configuration parameters
attributes for the <TestCase> column/element.

[Jacques2] would rule out using the "test step" col, as it is just a logical id for steps. Either "TestCase" col  or "[Operating] party" col, which would treat this info as config parameter for the operator (test driver). Granularity: would likely need to be at step level, e.g. your GetMessage step in Case #74 will need to wait until its timeout is over in order to count all duplicate messages - so this timeout limit will be set based on #retries and retryInterval. But that only makes sense for this step...  not for others in the same Case.

 We need also to be clear about the meaning of "reaching" the timeout: for a duplicate -counting step like in

#74, this is a normal termination: no error (the timeout IS the step completion signal) but for other steps, if completion is not reached at timeout, thats an error. We may need to specify when the timeout is actually used to terminate the step, e.g. timeout_isfailure='false' (true is default).

 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 ]  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?
[MIKE2] -  So what we are talking about as far as configurating an MSH using CPAs is a "startup" mode, in which the
candidate MSH starts up, reads a CPA ( or CPA-like config file )  and configures itself.  We are assuming no "dynamic" ability of an MSH to
alter its configuration once started.  Which means that all tests that must be run must assume that particular CPA configuration.
[Jacques2] well, in the simplest solution mentioned above, an MSH should be able to access/use

several CPAs at any time, based on the CPAId in messages.

All these CPAs would be set (and possibly known from MSH) prior to running the test suite - may need a pre-configuration phase, but that really depends on the MSH implementation (instead, CPAs could be preinstalled in a registry, and MSH only needs to access them on demand, at run-time, and cache them).

At test suite level,  we only need to specify a list of these CPAs (or CPAIds) needed by our test suite. Each test case will typically use no more than one CPA, but if we need to switch in the middle, that just means typically sending a message (m1, CPAId_1) to  the Initiator action, such that this action will generate a message (m2, CPAId_2).

We only need to change the CPAId in the message, for the MSH to know what to do.

A CPA would never change, once "installed" and referenced by a CPAId.

So that is the least constraining way for the MSH... in case we really need to dynamically craft and add new CPAs, the COnfigurator service action would be needed. But that makes more assumptions on the ability of the MSH. I don't believe we need that for now...

. 
That's fine, but it means that when the Test Driver "selects" test cases to run, it must make sure that the test identifies itself ( through, say
<TestCase> attributes, as to what that test case requires in CPA configuration to execute correctly. 
That way, when the Test Driver loads the <TestCase>, it can compare its known local "CPA profile" against the profile of the <TestCase> , and
not run that <TestCase> if it does not have a matching CPA profile.

[Jacques2] wouldn't the CPAId usage resolve this? We will assume here that all CPAIds are resolvable. We should not have to specify upfront the CPA for the test case: MSH should resolve based on CPAId of messages received, or on messages asked to be sent.

 
This makes a strong case for defining configuration parameters as attributes at the <TestCase> level, and those attributes should include CPA parameter
values that vary from the "base" CPA profile from which most <TestCase>s will run.  Comments?

Cheers,

 

Jacques

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