----- 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
Jacques,
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
Mike:
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:
<Thread>
<TestAssertion>.... (some XPath assertion)
</TestAssertion>
<WhenFalse>
<AbortThread>
</WhenFalse>
</Thread>
[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.
Comments?
- 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>.
Comments?
. 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".
Comments?
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).
Cheers,
jacques
<<section7.1-JD1_MK_JD2.doc>>
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.