Following up on
yesterday's discussion, I would propose a modification to the logic
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 4:01
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.
[MIKE] - I suggest that "exit/fail" should remain the
"default" behavior for a <TestAssertion> with a "false" result, even in
a concurrent thread
(for example, what if a concurrent Thread just
"listens" for Error messages if any are received?) The
behavior under the current logic scheme is for the Test
Driver to "exit/fail" if a <TestAssertion> finds an
Under the proposed new logic, the default result would be
that the the Error Listening Thread would "abort", and have no effect on
the outcome of the Test Case.
I suggest that if we wish to <AbortThread>, that we
explicitly say so in the script, otherwise keep the logic for
<TestAssertion> simple and consistent throughout the Test Suite so as
<TestAssertion>.... (some XPath
[MIKE] - Agreed. That is the current assumtion.
"exit/pass" MUST be explicitly set in the
- 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.
[MIKE] - I suggest that <AbortThread> MUST be explicitly
set for a <TestAssertion> that returns a value of "false"
- a passed assertion without explicit exit statement,
by default will "continue" the thread.
[MIKE] - Agreed. This is the current logic
- 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.
[MIKE] - Agreed
- 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)
[MIKE] - There are a couple of issues here:
The only way a "Main" Thread could abort (based on
your suggested logic for concurrent Threads) is if it is concurrently run
(i.e. the Main Thread is <Split>). But if it is the Main
thread, why would you <Split> it? Disregarding that, if an
"abort" means "terminate this Thread but continue execution" then the
Test Case would still execute successfully to termination, and should "pass"
(i.e. an "abort" is saying that a concurrent Main thread's result
[MIKE] - Also, use of a "Main" Thread is a RECOMMENDED
PRACTICE. There is no need to use a Main Thread in the Test scripting if
one is not necessary. For example, with the ebMS Test Suite, a Main
Thread is not required for any of the 200+ Test Cases, since all
<PutMessage> ,<GetMessage> and <TestAssertion> operations
can be completed as child elements of the <TestCase> itself (
which I believe can be considered a Main Thread). This greatly
simplifies scripting as well.
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