OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-iic message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] comments on use case #2, and on termination of test case

Title: comments on use case #2, and on termination of test case
   Below are some of my thoughts regarding "abort".    I think that it is a useful and necessary function for concurrent Threads
that will later be "orJoined".
I think however, that <Abort> should be explicitly set by the Test writer, since, in  99% of <TestAssertion> operations in a typical Test Suite,
a boolean result of "false" for a <TestAssertion> will signal a defaul exit  condition for the Test Case, with a final result of "fail".  This is the case for
ebMS testing, and will likely be the case for Registry testing as well. BPSS testing will of course have more complex, concurrent Thread opterations
that would benefit this functionality.  However, making <Abort> the default logical branch on a failed <TestAssertion> does not represent the typical use case
in our test scripting.
  Also, requiring the test writer to "micro manage" every <TestAssertion> in the test suite, and explicitly set a <WhenFalse><Exit>fail</Exit></WhenFalse>
and <WhenTrue><Continue/></WhenTrue>
is (in my opinion) against the intuitive meaning of a <TestAsssertion> operation, where "true" = "pass" and "false" = "fail".   Such
default behavior could be "overriden" in the case of a (rare) "abort" situation.  Forcing explicit declarations of branching will require unnecessary
and labor-intensive micro-scripting for each Test Case, where more intuitive default behavior rules for <TestAssertion> could handle the majority
of test cases.
  I would like to propose keeping the existing implied <TestAssertion> logic, but adding an explicit <Abort> option for <TestAssertion> that would let the test writer abort a
(concurrent) Thread if a particular <TestAssertion> fails.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 4:01 PM
Subject: [ebxml-iic] comments on use case #2, and on termination of test case


I think we need to tighten the semantics of a Test Assertion failing without explicit exit statement:
I am concerned that these implicit rules we have will be confusing on complex test cases that have concurrent threads...

(see my comment in 1.1.4, attached)
I would suggest we consider the following proposal:
- no "fail" outcome is produced unless an explicit fail exit statement is met during exec.
- no "pass" outcome unless an explicit pass exit statement is met during exec.
- a failed assertion without explicit exit statement, by default will "abort" the thread, but just the thread.
- a passed assertion without explicit exit statement, by default will "continue" the thread.
- when threads are joined, an aborted thread will automatically cause failure of an and-join (which aborts the container thread). In case it is an or-join, the aborted thread will just be ignored by the or-join (the or-join will fail if all joined threads abort). If a thread that was split but never joined, aborts, then it just stops and is simply ignored for the rest of the test case exec and outcome.

- if the Main thread of a test case aborts, the outcome is "Undetermined" by default (this is the only case of implicit outcome, in addition to other explicit "Undetermined" outcomes)

Some additional Comments starting p.5 of the attached doc (mostly, use case #2).

Also, I was searching for the section where we specify the test step timeout (MaxDuration?) , in the draft spec,
and did not find it (same for the "sleep" statement).



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.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]