[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] Re: Fwd: Issue 227: conformance section
Mike, The reason I said "appropriate exception" was because in the case where the exception is not specified, it still won't make sense to have a ArithmeticException or TypeNotPresentException or something of that nature. That would indicate that there is something else going on. But I suppose we can't categorically say which exceptions are disallowed. So I would be ok with what you suggest but perhaps with some explanatory text. -Anish -- On 2/22/2011 7:41 AM, Mike Edwards wrote: > > Folks, > > I would not separate the Positive and Negative tests in the way Anish > proposes. I see no purpose in this. > > Each testcase has some expected output - whether some positive response > or an exception - and the thing > that matters is that the actual response matches the expectation. > > A further problem with the proposed wording is that "appropriate > exceptions" is a misleading thing in that only in a subset of > cases is the exception specific - in other cases a general exception is > all that the spec describes. Also, for many of the cases > where a SPECIFIC exception is expected, it usually involves cases where > the Java API is being used - and in these cases > the testcase catches the exception in the code under test and validates > that it is the correct exception - reporting back to the > test client a POSITIVE response typically along the lines "TEST_xxxx > expected FooBar exception received" ;-) > > So I'd prefer a simpler set of words: > > "An implementation that claims to conform to this specification MUST be > able to run all applicable Tests in > Section 2 TestCases, producing the Expected Output. > > Note that conforming to this specification is considered a necessary > though not a sufficient condition to conform to the [POJO] specification." > > > Yours, Mike > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dr Mike Edwards Mail Point 146, Hursley Park > STSM Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN > SCA & Services Standards United Kingdom > Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC > IBM Software Group > Phone: +44-1962 818014 > Mobile: +44-7802-467431 (274097) > e-mail: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com > > > > > > From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> > To: David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>, Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>, > Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, > Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com> > Date: 21/02/2011 16:15 > Subject: Fwd: Issue 227: conformance section > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > OASIS email seems to be done. Here is my email from yesterday. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Issue 227: conformance section > Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:34:51 -0800 > From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> > To: OASIS Java <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Here is a proposal for replacing the conformance section of POJO CI > testcase document to resolve issue 227[1]: > > ---- > Normative code artifacts related to this specification are considered to > be authoritative and take precedence over specification text. > > An implementation that claims to conform to this specification MUST meet > the following conditions: > 1. The implementation is able to run all applicable Positive Tests in > Section 2 TestCases producing the Expected Output. > 2. The implementation is able to run all applicable Negative Tests in > Section 2 TestCases producing appropriate exceptions. > > Note that conforming to this specification is considered a necessary > though not a sufficient condition to conform to the [POJO] specification. > > [The non-normative ref section will have to be updated to include the > POJO CI spec reference]. > > ---- > > If we wanted to go further along the lines of what we discussed at the > last call. Section 11.3 of the POJO spec should be updated to append the > following: > > "7. The implementation MUST meet all the conformance requirements > defined by the SCA-J POJO Component Implementation v1.1 TestCases > [POJO-TC]." > > [The normative ref section will have to be updated to include the POJO > TC reference] > > Comments? > > -Anish > -- > > [1] > http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-j/sca-j-pojo-ci-1.1-testcases-1.0-csprd01.pdf > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > / > / > > /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/ > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]