[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] A New SCA Testing TC?
Each language has to have a mapping to SCA so b) requires public documentation of how this is done. I think having this will be important to understanding the tests, and aid verification. Martin. > -----Original Message----- > From: ashok malhotra [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: 17 July 2009 14:58 > To: Martin Chapman > Cc: 'OASIS Assembly' > Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] A New SCA Testing TC? > > Martin: > Why do we need b) ? > > If they show the test suite and say they pass all the language-dependent > and language-independent tests, isn't that sufficient? > All the best, Ashok > > > Martin Chapman wrote: > > > > On the MS/Siemens issue, how about we change the conformance > > requirements in the assembly spec to the effect of a) and b) in your > > email. > > > > Currently we say in Section 13.2 > > > > . > > > > 3.The implementation MUST support and comply with at least one of the > > OpenCSA Member Section adopted implementation types. > > > > How about replacing this with (something like): > > > > 3. The implementation MUST support and comply with a publically > > available implementation type. A publically available implementation > > type MUST: > > > > a) Have a publicly available version of the test suite written in the > > implementation type, available for any party to download, validate and > > execute > > > > b) Have a publicly available document(s) describing the implementation > > type, which, at a minimum, describes the mapping from implementation > > type artifacts to the componentType when the implementation artifact > > is used as the implementation of an SCA Component. > > > > Note that OpenSCA Member Section adopted implementation types fulfill > > these requirements. > > > > *From:* Mike Edwards [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > > *Sent:* 17 July 2009 10:01 > > *To:* OASIS Assembly > > *Subject:* [sca-assembly] A New SCA Testing TC? > > > > > > Folks, > > > > Bob's points below really go into the area of the responses that we > > owe Microsoft and Siemens > > relating to their public review comments on the Assembly spec. > > > > It is my belief that the Assembly tests have been structured in such a > > way that they are adaptable > > to a any new future implementation type, although I agree that the > > TestCases document needs to > > be more explicit and normative about which parts of the testcases can > > be changed and what > > changes are allowed. > > > > The problem remains however, about how we can ensure that a vendor > > implementing a new > > implementation type and wanting to claim conformance for their runtime > > using that implementation > > type satisfies 2 key requirements: > > > > a) Have a publicly available version of the test suite written in the > > new implementation type, > > which can be used by all and which would be subject to scrutiny for > > the validity of the translation > > of the testcases. > > > > b) Have a publicly available document describing the new > > implementation type which at a > > minimum describes the mapping from implementation type artifacts to > > the componentType > > when the implementation artifact is used as the implementation of an > > SCA Component. > > > > > > So far, the only route we have of guaranteeing both of these > > requirements is to require that > > the new implementation language is described by a specification > > developed under the > > aegis of an OASIS TC. > > > > I am interested to hear if there some alternatives available which > > will provide these requirements > > while allowing some alternative approach to the development and > > publishing of the materials. > > > > > > > > I don't think that a "Testing TC" affects these questions much at all. > > I tend to agree with Bob that > > the value of a separate Testing TC is questionable and there remains > > an issue relating to the > > implementation type specific tests that an impl language TC may want > > to require as part of the > > conformance requirements for their spec. To me, these tests seem to > > naturally belong to the > > language TC itself. Having a separate TC with different membership > > seems like a recipe for > > conflict and/or missing testcases.... > > > > > > 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: email@example.com > > > > From: > > > > > > > > Bob Freund <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > > To: > > > > > > > > email@example.com > > > > Cc: > > > > > > > > OASIS Assembly Test <firstname.lastname@example.org>, OASIS > > Policy <email@example.com>, OASIS Bindings > > <firstname.lastname@example.org>, OASIS Java > > <email@example.com>, OASIS BPEL > > <firstname.lastname@example.org>, OASIS CPP > > <email@example.com> > > > > Date: > > > > > > > > 16/07/2009 22:03 > > > > Subject: > > > > > > > > Re: [sca-policy] A New SCA Testing TC? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > Ashok, > > I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that it ought to be possible > > for a new language to be brought in to the family, but I am concerned > > about creating a centralized testing TC. > > One main reason is that it is unclear how long such a TC would be > > staffed or its members remain interested. A new language could come > > along years from now. > > IMO it would be better to describe the language interface tests in a > > language independent manner so that they could be implemented in > > whatever language as may arise in the future. > > The problem is the determination of the correct implementation of > > those "meta" tests. Perhaps there is some technical solution, but it > > escapes my limited imagination. > > an alternate approach might be that the implementors might self- > > certify and be required to publish the tests used as well as the > > results before being able to claim conformance. The customer's might > > them be able to judge for themselves the degree of rigor used and thus > > the quality of the self-certification. > > -bob > > > > On Jul 15, 2009, at 4:42 PM, ashok malhotra wrote: > > > > > If you have been following the Assembly Testing work, you know that > > > the Assembly Test Cases are written in Java. > > > Mike is now preparing a BPEL version. > > > > > > Clearly, the Java test cases test the Java C&I to some extent and > > > Bryan has raised an issue that asks whether the Assembly and Java > > > tests should be more cleanly separated, but there are > > > complications. The Assembly tests need some C&I to test and some > > > duplication cannot be prevented. Also, if the Assembly tests and > > > the language tests were separated, then who adjudicate differences > > > of opinion and duplication? Further, if the Assembly tests were > > > shorn of any language C&I, someone could come along, pass only the > > > Assembly, Policy and Bindings tests and claim SCA compliance. > > > > > > So, I'm suggesting we consider forming a new TC that would be > > > responsible for all SCA Testing. > > > Before you go "Aaargh! Not another TC!", please consider the > > > advantages: > > > > > > 1. Bryan's issue would be closed as there would be only a single TC > > > and it would write and manage all the tests, some > > > of which would, of course, cover Assembly and one or more language > > > C&Is. In fact, thinking about it, many of the tests > > > would cover some Assembly features, some Policy, a binding and some > > > C&I. > > > > > > 2.. If all the tests were in a single TC there would be no need for > > > someone else to settle disputes. > > > > > > 3. If an outside party were to come and claim SCA compliance, the > > > Testing TC would have the authority to vet their > > > tests and say 'yay' or 'nay'. Or to enforce which tests they should > > > run. > > > > > > What do people think? > > > -- > > > All the best, Ashok > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > > > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > /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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php