[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: some late feedback...(on MS conf)
Mike and all:
Quick feedback on MS conf spec (will send more later):
1. need more names in "reviewers" section
2. Profiles section need more exposure (a full section, not header 3), and we'll need a
conforming profile document pointing to the right reqs. We may need to re-discuss a bit the
profile defs (ping/pong/status svc place, syncReply options)
3. Test cases for multi-hop still use the "concrete" syntax (GetMessage...)
4. The wording of some test reqs is not concrete enough, in terms of testable assertion
(see reqs 6, 7: "the MSH accepts the message", we need to say something more concrete,
like: passes to application without generating an error.)
5. In Test Cases: would correlation based on Conv ID be sufficient, for associating req-resp?
(instead of MesgID / RefToMesgID)
(not sure we can always assume the Test Driver can know, as an app, the MesgID that are generated by its MSH)
Regards,
Jacques
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]