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 - yet more

Title: comments on use case #2, and on termination of test case
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] comments on use case #2, and on termination of test case - more comments

     Following up on yesterday's discussion, I would propose a modification to the logic rules:
----- 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.

[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 default

behavior under the current logic scheme is for the Test Driver to "exit/fail" if a <TestAssertion> finds an Error message. 

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 to

minimize confusion:



<TestAssertion>.... (some XPath assertion) </TestAssertion>






[MIKE2] - Additionally, I would suggest (just to keep the rules as simple as possible) that <AbortThread> be permitted for "serial" Threads as well.  I do not see any reason why/how this would have a negative effect on execution flow.  Basically, this would say that an "aborted" serial Thread simply exits ( for whatever <TestAssertion> result in that Thread) and workflow continues wiht the next instruction after that Thread.  This can be thought of as the serial version of the "dangling concurrent thread", whose result is not consequential to the ultimate result of the Test Case.  This keeps the rules simple for all Threads.


- no "pass" outcome unless an explicit pass exit statement is met during exec.

[MIKE] - Agreed. That is the current assumtion.  "exit/pass" MUST be explicitly set in the <TestAssertion>

- 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 assumption

- when threads are joined, an aborted thread will automatically cause failure of an and-join (which aborts the container thread) [MIKE2] - My question is, why abort the container Thread as well?  If a Join simply allows/disallows (gates) workflow continuation based upon the result of the Join, then it appears that in either case (whether Join condition is satisfied or not), there is no reason to "abort" the parent Thread.  There is no "error" (that I can see) either way with the Join that would require an "abort" of the parent Thread. If the and/or Join result allows continuation of workflow , then the parent Thread would simply finish its workflow execution, and return control to IT's parent Thread (ther parent's parent).   If the and/or Join result precludes workflow continuation... fine... The logic rules have been followed, and again, control is returned to the "parent's parent Thread". No abort is necessary.  The only scenario that I can see that would require the parent Thread to "abort"  is if a <TestAssertion> operation run IN THAT Parent Thread implicilty or (as I would prefer) explicitly sets an <AbortThread> instruction based upon the result of that <TestAssertion>.


. 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 is "inconsequential"). 


[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.


[MIKE2] - I would like to suggest setting the final state of the Test Case to "undetermined" if a child (of the <TestCase>) <TestAssertion> encounters an <AbortThread> instruction during its workflow. Otherwise, all other <Thread>s simply "abort" and pass control back to their parent Thread.  If execution proceeds to logical conclusion without an exception conditions or explicit exits, then the Test Case final result is "pass".








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]