Re: DDR Simple API test class - Draft 1

Thanks Rotan.

Ref the C# implementation, that would be nice, but not strictly a 
conformance test, I think.

I'd be happier if the test did not depend on the insertion of a virtual 
device into a particular data set - although I could see the argument 
for testing against the DDC, possibly. I'd prefer that the positive 
tests were carried out on a "UA known to be recognised" and that the 
negative tests were carried out on a device "known not to be recognised" 
by a particular implementation. It being up to those claiming 
conformance to identify what those devices were ...

... I'm also a bit concerned that it is legitimate for an implementation 
"not to know" values. If I have understood the code correctly it's 
assumed that a value exists for these properties. I'm not especially 
suggesting that two devices are tested, one of which has known values 
and the other not, but I'm not sure I know what the alternative is.

That would mean in detail that we tested 3 devices. One unrecognised, 
one known for which the values are know and one known for which the 
values are not known ...

Jo

On 11/06/2008 08:27, Ignacio Marin wrote:
> Once that the group agrees on the definition of these Java tests, I 
> think it would be an easy task to port them to C#.
> 
> So C# can be counted in the set of technologies for which the test suite 
> will be available.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Nacho
> 
>  
> 
> ******************************************
> 
> Ignacio Marín Prendes
> 
> Head of Unit of Device Independence and Mobility
> 
> R&D Department
> 
> ignacio.marin@fundacionctic.org 
> <blocked::BLOCKED::mailto:ignacio.marin@fundacionctic.org>
> 
> www.fundacionctic.org 
> <blocked::BLOCKED::blocked::http://www.fundacionctic.org>
> 
> Fundación CTIC -Centro Tecnológico de la Información y la Comunicación-
> 
> Parque Científico y Tecnológico de Gijón
> 
> Edificio Centros Tecnológicos
> 
> 33203 Cabueñes – Gijón – Asturias
> 
> Teléfono: 984 29 12 12
> 
> Fax: 984 39 06 12
> 
> ******************************************
> 
> Este e-mail y cualquiera de sus ficheros anexos son confidenciales y 
> pueden incluir información privilegiada. Si usted no es el destinatario 
> adecuado (o responsable de remitirlo a la persona indicada), 
> agradeceríamos lo notificase o reenviase inmediatamente al emisor. No 
> revele estos contenidos a ninguna otra persona, no los utilice para otra 
> finalidad, ni almacene y/o copie esta información en medio alguno.
> 
> Opiniones, conclusiones y otro tipo de información relacionada con este 
> mensaje que no sean relativas a la actividad propia de CTIC deberán ser 
> entendidas como exclusivas del emisor.
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> /This e-mail is confidential and may contain legally privileged 
> information. If you are not the intended recipient it may be unlawful 
> for you to read, copy, distribute or otherwise make use of the 
> information herein. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
> contact us immediately. Fundación  CTIC will accept no liability for the 
> mistransmission, interference, or interception of any e-mail and you are 
> reminded that e-mail is not a secure method of communication./
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *De:* public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] *En 
> nombre de *Rotan Hanrahan
> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 11 de junio de 2008 5:01
> *Para:* public-ddwg@w3.org
> *Asunto:* DDR Simple API test class - Draft 1
> 
>  
> 
> Attached is a simple Java class that can be used to exercise the 
> majority of the methods in a compliant Java implementation of the 
> proposed DDR Simple API.
> 
> I have written this first draft as a contribution to next week’s 
> face-to-face meeting in France in which we expect to be informed of 
> multiple implementations. Code based on the draft I am submitting can be 
> used to verify that key use cases for a Java implementation are behaving 
> in conformance with the specification. Following the recent publication 
> of what the DDWG members believe is a stable and worthy specification, 
> there is now a keen interest in seeing implementations that claim to 
> conform to this specification, so that we can make progress towards a 
> formal Recommendation. Such claims can be put to the test with the aid 
> of the attached code.
> 
> Note, this draft does not validate the error use cases, where exceptions 
> are defined in the specification. I expect this to be in an update.
> 
> The test currently relies only on the Core Vocabulary, and to provide 
> the necessary predictability of the underlying data, a “virtual” device 
> is being considered, whose identity can be determined solely by the User 
> Agent header. For the purpose of the test, implementations should 
> recognise this virtual device, and their underlying data should be 
> populated with the expected values (as indicated by the constants 
> present in the test source).
> 
> This is not an exhaustive test, nor a system test, nor a performance 
> test. It is not a test of the correctness of the underlying data. All 
> such tests would be out of scope for the API itself. The purpose of the 
> test suite captured in this draft class is to exercise the API in a 
> manner consistent with the expected use cases for implementations that 
> have heeded the suggestion to support the Core Vocabulary, in order to 
> raise confidence that, from a functional point of view, the 
> implementations conform to the specification. Multiple claims that are 
> so supported may be sufficient evidence of the viability of this new 
> technology.
> 
> This contribution also anticipates a likely expectation from observers 
> that progress towards a formal Recommendation should be accompanied, 
> insofar as possible and practical, reasonable and independent support 
> for any claims of conformance.
> 
> Finally, the tests are implemented in Java but the API is designed to be 
> language-neutral (as far as possible). Unfortunately time constraints 
> prevent me from providing similar tests in other languages, but 
> contributions would be welcome (after the tests have been agreed by the 
> group).
> 
> ---Rotan (chair).
> 
> <<DDRSimpleAPITester.java>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 09:51:59 UTC