Review of Test Assertions and TestCases

[David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>]

I've been through sections 4 and 5. I'm looking at SCA_Assembly_Test_Assertions_16.odt, SCA_Assembly_TestCases_22.odt and the CD03 assembly spec. Some of the following may have come up before, I don't know.

1) I think we really need to restructure or rename some/all of the artifacts because it's REALLY hard to connect all the pieces together when the names aren't meaningful...what does TestComposite4.composite do again? :-) For example; if I were King for a day, I'd rename ASM_0002_Client.java to something like Passthru.java.

2) Shouldn't the composite files be in the oasis-open.org namespace? I don't think http://oasis/tests is good enough. Same thought for the java packages of the java code.

3) No TA for ASM40001(ok?)

4) ASM-TA-4001 - The spec says that constrainingType files are in the Domain, but the testcase doesn't have them in the definitions file. The constraint file is just hanging around in the General contribution. The Def'ns file doesn't have an element to hold constrainingTypes. Seems like a hole in the spec.

5) TA-4008 is not in the testcase document but it seems possible to write a test for it.

6) TestComposite43 and 44 could be more similar. One uses component1, the other uses a seemingly gratuitously different component name. I suspect this might be true of other composites in that these things evolved organically but some cleanup is needed so that the only differences between the composites is something that is central to it's purpose....and then as I said above, rename it to reflect it's purpose also.

7) property/@file never appears in a TA or TC, same for property/@many=true

8) I don't think @autowire is ever used on a component or composite, but I might have missed something in my search (searched both TA and TC documents)

9) ASM50007 - has a typo, it refers to service when it should say reference.

10) ASM_5010_TestCase claims to be related to ASM-TA-5005, but that's a typo, should be ASM-TA-5006

11) ASM50005 has a 3rd case that I don't see covered by the TAs (I see only TA-5007 and TA-5008) - Component overrides bindings present in componentType

12) TA-5009 - claims to be for ASM50006 but ASM50006 is about callbacks. Must be a typo here?

13) ASM50009 - since it's fairly complex, I wonder if it's worth having an additional negative test? perhaps a 1..n -> 0..1 case?

14) TA-5014, TA-5015, TA-5019, TA-5020 - These look like candidates for removal and placement into the language TCs.

15) Test_ASM_5016 - I think you should use WSDL interfaces instead of Java for these ASM testcases. The testcases are good and should be moved to Java TC.

16) TA-5017, Test_ASM-5017 and TestComposite10 highlight the fact that there are no conformance statements in section 8.5 of the spec. TestComposite10 uses @uri with binding.sca.

17) I could not find where Section 4.3.1 points 3, 5 and 6 (CD03) are addressed in the TA document as part of ASM50014. TA-5023 could be clarified that it is covering point 2 as that's what the testcase does.

18) TA-5024 is covered by ASM_5018_TestCase, just wondering if we should have a negative test specific to TA-5024 instead of grouping it in the same testcase as TA-5018

19) ASM_5004_TestCase says reference with multiplicity 1..1, but the testcase uses test.ASM_0002_Clientwhich has multiplicity 0..1 (@Reference(required=false))

20) TA-5031 the testcase ASM_5002_TestCase) does not use the @value attribute as required the associated ASM50027.

21) TA-5035 is related to ASM50037, not ASM50031.

22) ASM50030 and ASM50031 seem to be duplicates.

23) CD03 line 1030 contains an unmarked MUST. Need a label, TA, etc for this one.

24) TA-5039, 5040, 5041, 5042 - don't appear in the testcase document



Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com