Re: [sca-assembly] Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section7-10

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

inline responses <dab> like this </dab>


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

Mike Edwards ---06/03/2009 05:48:41 PM---Dave, Thanks again - it is great to have more eyes looking at this.

From:	Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
To:	sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	06/03/2009 05:48 PM
Subject:	Re: [sca-assembly] Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section 7-10

---

Dave, 

Thanks again - it is great to have more eyes looking at this. 

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>
To:	sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	02/06/2009 15:08
Subject:	[sca-assembly] Continuing Test Assertion and TestCase review - section 7-10

---

Continuing with Section 7; I'm looking at SCA_Assembly_Test_Assertions_16.odt, SCA_Assembly_TestCases_22.odt and the CD03 assembly spec.

31) ConstrainingType is not optional in terms of compliance? I thought it was. 

Well, that's an Assembly spec question.  The Assembly spec has very few optional features. 
If you want to change that, it means an Assembly spec issue...
<dab> I put it on my list of "deferred to PR" items. DONE </dab>

32) TA-7005 - Any ideas on what to do with this? 

Yes, now that all the Contribution stuff is working well in the testcases, I think the simple thing is to 
create a separate Contribution for the testcase that contains 2 constraint files containing conflicting 
constraints with the same namespace/@name combination.
<dab> Are you working on this already? </dab>

Continuing with Section 8

32) ASM_8001_TestCase - why does this testcase contribution contain TestInvocation.wsdl and the two java classes needed for the test? Aren't these supposed to be moved to other contributions? 

Yes, I suppose so.  TestComposite51 is invalid and so needs to be in a Contribution of its own. 
I think that we need contributions ASM_8001_xxxx with Java, BPEL etc
<dab> Are you working on this already? </dab>
33) TA-8003 - Predicate is wrong. It should be "...as observable by the service implementation." 

Agreed
<dab> Are you working on this already? </dab>
34) TA-8003 - Here's another one that probably could be tested by language specific testcases. We've stumbled across a few of these now. It occurred to me that the assembly TC should provide guidance to each language TC stating that untestable assembly TAs should have a corresponding testcase(s) OR a statement that the Assembly TA is also untestable by the language TC. I'm trying to create some linkage/interlock between rules and semantics which are stated in assembly but which are not re-stated in the language specs, and therefore will probably fall through the cracks. 

Yes, such formal mechanics for Assembly to liaise with the language TCs is probably a good idea. 
<dab> Can you add something to the TA document for this?  If the Assembly TC agrees, then we can take it to the Liason TC and communicate it. </dab>

This testcase can probably be tested by both Java and by BPEL implementations, where the concept of a 
long running instance is available, through the use of callbacks.  I'd have to defer to Bryan as to whether 
the same can be done in C / C++
<dab> I was thinking you might be able to do this in Java with a composite scoped component and multiple calls. </dab>
35) ASM_8009_TestCase only talks about covering the reference case, but the underlying test also covers the service case. 

It does.  I'll have to fix this.
<dab> Are you working on this already? </dab>
36) ASM_8012_TestCase only talks about covering the reference case, but TA-8014 covers services as well, so I think this test should be updated to cover services (similar to ASM_8009_TestCase). 

I think that ideally this requires a NEW testcase to cover the service case. TODO 
<dab> I agree (and same for 8009).  I put it on my list of "deferred to PR" items. DONE </dab>

37) ASM80017 - claims to be covered by ASM-TA-7, but there is no such assertion. 

Here is a missing TA and a missing TestCase.  TODO.
<dab> I put it on my list of "deferred to PR" items. DONE </dab>
Continuing with Section 9

38) ASM_9003_TestCase - interesting. It has a hardcoded URI (<binding.ws uri="http://localhost:8080/TestComponent1"/>) that needs to be addressable in order for the testcase to work. The composite it's in will have to be factored somehow so that the correct URI can be provided when running this test on a specific runtime. 

I'm open to ideas on this one. Entity refs is one possibility, allowing replacement without changing the Composite file, but it is a bit cumbersome.
<dab> I think this is serious and would like to open an issue. </dab>

39) TA-10001 - typo, the source is ASM10001 (there's one too many zeroes in the source row).

Fixed <dab> ok, I don't see the change in draft 17 of the TA document.  Do you have one in progress? </dab>

Continuing with Section 10

No comments :-)




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

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU