Re: [sca-j] Direction for normative text and tests covering JAX-WSannotations.

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

Having worked on the Test Assertions and Test Cases for JCI80001, I can say
that it was painful to ensure proper coverage of all cases.  By painful, I
mean that it was tedious and allowed for lots of human error.  It took Mike
and I several iterations to convince ourselves that we had everything
covered appropriately.  Where as, writing TAs and testcases from a single
conformance statement is much less error prone because the TA and TC writer
is working in a more narrow scope.

Personally, I have a strong preference to not repeat the JCI80001
experience unless absolutely necessary.  Having said that, I still do think
that JCI80001 as written is an appropriate use of that form of normative
statement.  There are many aspects of JCI80001 that are intertwined with
other parts of the same section.  I don't think that's the case for the
JAX-WS annotations.

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


|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>                                                                                                            |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org                                                                                                                        |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |06/28/2010 06:34 PM                                                                                                                               |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Re: [sca-j] Direction for normative text and tests covering JAX-WS annotations.                                                                   |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|






Bryan,

Your analysis shows the problem of mixing styles of normative statements.

Most of the componentType sections are a written (deliberately) in a simple
declarative style with no normative statements
and are then prefixed by a single normative statement requiring that an SCA
runtime computes the componentType in the
fashion described in that declarative section.  This approach avoids a lot
of detailed normative statements that in many instances
would become convoluted because of conditional cases.

Other sections, such as the handling of reference targets in the Assembly
specification, have detailed normative statements
throughout and no encompassing normative statement. In this case, it is
clear what is expected for each aspect of the behaviour,
at the cost of a few convoluted statements (eg ASM50014).

Mix the styles and it gets much harder to understand what is expected.  I
recommend choosing one style and sticking to it, for any
given section.

In this case, given the extensive number of existing normative statements
in the table, I think that adding a set of new ones to
the table is desirable.  The idea of adding a similar number of testcases
does not fill me with joy.  I already added about 25
new testcases in the last 2 weeks, some quite complex  :-(



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:    Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>                             
                                                                           
 To:      sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org                                       
                                                                           
 Date:    28/06/2010 17:43                                                 
                                                                           
 Subject: [sca-j] Direction for normative text and tests covering JAX-WS   
          annotations.                                                     
                                                                           






On this week's call we had a brief discussion about the lack of a normative
statement covering the exclude property of @WebMethod and thus no test
assertion or test case.  When I looked at this in more detail I noticed a
couple of things. Normative statement JCA100011 states: An SCA runtime MUST
apply the JAX-WS annotations as described in Table 11-1 and Table 11-2 when
introspecting a Java class or interface class.  The test assertion document
states that for this normative statement: No meaningful assertion.

I contrast this with a similar situation in the JCS Spec, where JCI80001
states: An SCA runtime MUST introspect the componentType of a Java
implementation class following the rules defined in the section "Component
Type of a Java Implementation".  This normative statement leads to a number
of individual test assertions: JCI-TA-8001, JCI-TA-8002, JCI-TA-8003,
JCI-TA-8004, JCI-TA-8005, JCI-TA-8006, JCI-TA-8007, JCI-TA-8008,
JCI-TA-8009, JCI-TA-8010, JCI-TA-8011, JCI-TA-8012, JCI-TA-8013,
JCI-TA-8016, JCI-TA-8017, JCI-TA-8018, JCI-TA-8019, JCI-TA-8020,
JCI-TA-8021, JCI-TA-8022, JCI-TA-8023, JCI-TA-8024, JCI-TA-8025,
JCI-TA-8026, JCI-TA-8027, JCI-TA-8028, JCI-TA-8029, JCI-TA-8030,
JCI-TA-8031, JCI-TA-8032, JCI-TA-8033, JCI-TA-8034, JCI-TA-8035,
JCI-TA-8036, JCI-TA-8037 in the current draft.

There are several points in CAA Table 11-1 and Table 11-2 that probably
need testing that currently do not have explicit normative statements:
@WebService: name
@WebMethod: operationName and exclude
@WebParam: name, mode and  partName
@WebReturn: name and partName
@WebFault: name
We could write explicit normative statements for each of these (making
JCA100011 redundant) or cover them via JCA100011 and have test assertions
and thus test cases for JCA100011 like we have for JCI80001.

I'd like some input on the direction to take before I write up an
issue/proposal.

Thanks.

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
WW Center of Excellence for Enterprise Systems & Banking Center of
Excellence Application Integration Architect

Research Triangle Park,  NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@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