----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 3:06
PM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic] comments on use
case #2, and on termination of test case
Mike:
That would
be satisfying: as long as we have a way to exit from a thread (abort)
without
exiting
from the test case.
The only
argument I'd have against your position, is that it is not always on the
"intuiton" side
(e.g. you
spawn an error-detection thread that will explicitly exit on failure as soon
as an error message is received (<WhenTrue><Exit>Fail...) ,
but if you forget the <WhenFalse>Continue,
- which
additionally may sound odd if at the end of a thread - then this thread wil
still Fail the entire test case...)
[MIKE3] - Understood.. this wasn't the best example I could
think of..
So we have
now 5 possible actions to follow a Test Assertion result (either True or
False):
- continue
(or Continue_Thread?) (default for Assertion=True)
- abort (or
Abort_Thread?)
- exit Fail
(default for Assertion=False)
- exit
Pass
- exit
Undetermined
Am I
right?
[MIKE3] -
Yes. We are implmenting now.
Additionally:
- if the
test case terminates its execution (all threads?, or just main thread?)
without exiting either on Fail or Undetermined, then it
Passes.
[MIKE3] -
Add "exception" in there as well and yes
- If a
thread aborts, its container thread (or caller thread)
aborts.
[MIKE3] -
No.. why do we need to do this??? Why kill the parent/caller Thread in
which you may wish to do your join???? Also, why not let
logic
contiue to
a final resolution?
- if main
thread aborts: test case Fails? (abort is a logical meaning) or just
Undetermined?
[MIKE3]-We'll go with undetermined, and this will only occur at
the <TestCase> level ( treating TestCase as the "main" Thread). It
simplifies scripting greatly,
achieves
the same goal. Having a "main" Thread is only meaningful from a
semantic view.. TestCase is in f act the main
Thread.
Comments? ( We need to move quickly on resolution of
this)
Jacques
Jacques,
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.
Comments?
Mike
----- 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.
- 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).
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.