Re: [sca-policy] Rewording POL40001, POL40010 - POL40012 & Revised TA's

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Eric,

This is pretty good.

I like the idea of the testcase suite
building "profiles" - ie runtimes can potentially fail some tests
and yet be said to pass the suite as
a whole with some particular profile with names like

"Supports Direct Attach Policies
Only"
"Supports External Attach Policies
Only"
"Supports Direct and External Attach
Policies"

This will mean beefing up the testcase
suite to 
a) report global results of all tests
run
b) evaluate the set of results
c) issue a statement of conformance
based on the evaluation



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:	"Eric Wells" <eric.wells@hitachisoftware.com>
To:	<sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	16/06/2009 13:49
Subject:	[sca-policy] Rewording POL40001, POL40010 - POL40012 & Revised TA's

---

All,
    having considered this further I don't think these statements
can be
reworded to make them independent of the mechanisms the SCA runtime supports
without changing the semantics. From CD02/PRD:

655 SCA runtimes MUST support at least one of the Direct Attachment and
External Attachment mechanisms
656 for policySet attachment. [POL40010] SCA implementations supporting
only
the External Attachment
657 mechanism MUST ignore the policy sets that are applicable via the Direct
Attachment mechanism.
658 [POL40011] SCA implementations supporting only the Direct Attachment
mechanism MUST ignore the
659 policy sets that are applicable via the External Attachment mechanism.
[POL40012] SCA
660 implementations supporting both Direct Attachment and External
Attachment mechanisms MUST ignore
661 policy sets applicable to any given SCA element via the Direct
Attachment mechanism when there exist
662 policy sets applicable to the same SCA element via the External
Attachment mechanism [POL40001]

Therefore I've taken another stab at writing the corresponding Test
Assertions, which are included in the attached MS Word document.

The approach I used is to make the assertions mandatory and use the
prerequisites to qualify which of them apply the SCA runtime under test.
This assumes that the test protocol will ignore (and NOT fail) a test that
does not apply. (This is actually a separate issue and should probably
be
raised as such).

I also noticed that the TA's do not cover some situations, such as an SCA
runtime that supports both Direct and External attachment, but only one
of
these is used on any given element. I've added TA's to cover these as well.

On a related issue the Test Assertions POL-TA-40005A/B/C use the terminology
"directly applied to the element", which is confusing. In this
instance it
is not referring to Direct/External attachment, it means "applied
to this
element in the hierarchy and not inherited from other elements". I
think
these TA's should be reworded to avoid confusion with the Direct/External
attachment mechanism. However the above is the best I could think of and
that phrase would probably make matter worse! Does anyone have any
suggestions?

Best Regards,
              Eric.
Eric Wells.
Consulting Engineer.
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
San Francisco, CA. USA.
+1 (415) 656-4346
eric.wells@hitachisoftware.com
 
[attachment "SCA_Policy_Test_Assertions_EW_June_15.doc" deleted
by Mike Edwards/UK/IBM] ---------------------------------------------------------------------
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