[ebxml-iic] ebXML IIC 10/14/2002: Comments on Abstract Test Cases

[Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net>]

One comment in response to Jacques and Michael Kass:

/Payload  <Jacques> we need to explain how to interpret such expression
, or, could we assume that the GetPayload (or even GetMessage )
operation, is automatically casting the MIME envelope into an XML format
so that we can then use Xpath conditions on it? If we assume that
GetMessage does this implicitly, we would not even need "GetPayload"
above: we can test that there is a MIME part "Content-ID child" with
value <cid:payload_1>., in our conformance condition. Opinion?   <MIKE>
1) I agree that documentation is needed to explain all of the abstract
test terminology. 2) I can do what you are asking here( "downcast" MIME
headers ), it just means that "containership" only exists at the MIME
Message level, and message components are expressed in XPath.  We can do
that, it just means there is no "real-world" relationship between the
syntax expressed here and actual test suite XML schema.  Of course, that
is what an "abstract test suite" is  :-)  3) I would like to keep
<GetPayload>. I think that it is very helpful in giving someone an idea
what the XPath expression really means.    [mm1: I would agree to keep
so we provide as much flexibility as possible (given our assumptions may
change or the assumptions will change with an implementation of the test
cases).]  Regarding the meaning of this particular operation: This XPath
expression actually evaluates the contents of the returned payload to to
verify that a single XML clement called  <Payload> is present.   We will
be doing a lot of payload content verification with Registry and
vertical application conformance testing.