Re: [ws-tx] optional features means optional tests?

[Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>]

Completion protocol is not mandatory under any circumstances. Activation 
Service is not mandatory under any circumstances.

In my view, to repeat, the point of these interop tests is to prove 
(very roughly) -- better, to give some confidence -- that the words in 
the spec are capable of being rendered into interoperable software.

Besides, how hard is it to do this? Support for mixed outcome at a wire 
level is trivial.

Alastair

Mark Little wrote:
> We need to describe the tests for all features if we want to show 
> interoperability for those features. However, and the specific case I 
> have in mind is mixed outcome, which is not mandatory under any 
> circumstances, it shouldn't be a requirement for anyone in the TC to 
> test against because then it's effectively a mandatory implementation 
> (at least as far as the TC work is concerned). It does not make sense 
> to have optional features covered by mandatory tests. Likewise, it 
> does not make sense to have optional features that aren't tested by at 
> least 2 different implementations, but that's a separate issue.
>
> Mark.
>
>
>
> On 5 Sep 2006, at 14:41, Alastair Green wrote:
>
>> Unlike in WS-AT, where optional Completion protocol was a mandatory 
>> interop test. :-)
>>
>> Not sure of final outcome from F2F, but this point was discussed, and 
>> it was pointed out that in AT this approach was not taken.
>>
>> In my view the point of interop tests is not conformance, but to 
>> prove that the specs are workable -- a task which applies to all parts.
>>
>> Yrs,
>>
>> Alastair
>>
>> Mark Little wrote:
>>> I'm assuming that any optional features in the specification that 
>>> are covered by tests in the interoperability scenarios inherently 
>>> means that those tests are also optional? Certainly in W3C 
>>> interoperability testing, only mandatory features have to be tested.
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>>
>
>