----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 5:47
PM
Subject: [ebxml-iic] definitions
OK, here is attached an update version based on
Mike/Monica comments.
If we agree, we
should insert into the Conf spec, and also candidate for the next
TestFramework update.
>[MIKE] - Following Monica's thread, I
think that we should identify
>assertions in the conformance testing requirements
>that we recognize as "implementation
guidelines", since in fact the ebMS
>specification
>is
full of them. For example, "storing a message in its entirety
in
>persistent store" is
one
>assertion that falls in the
implemtation guideline category. I believe that
>any test requirement identified as an
>implementation guideline should NOT
have an abstract test case.
Definitely. But I can't think of many such
cases in ebMS.
maybe some SHOULD
fall into this class...
[MIKE] - I agree that there are not too
many, but they should be identified, and not
described in an abstract test case if they
are determined to be implementation guidelines.
>If, however we recognize
>a test requirement as being a valid
conformance test requirement, but we
>cannot write a test case for it because of constraints
>on our test framework, then we SHOULD
write an abstract test case for it
>(e.g. MSH interrupts and
>restarts ). I think that this approach would give us a
consistent test
>requirements
(and test suite) document.
Absolutely. Our definitions of abstract /
executable show this is possible.
Jacques
<<Test_Req-Abstract-Concrete.txt>>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
of the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-iic/members/leave_workgroup.php.