Re: Test cases document updated

Dear Raúl,

thanks for the update. I'd try to review the document in the upcoming days.

Just one question: does the test suite is supported by actual tests? 
I've just make a pull form the repository, and the test folder remains 
only with the initial test files created by Eric Prud'hommeaux early 
this year. If so, I'd try to generate a proper test corpus in parallel I 
implement the test suite.

Cheers,

On 27/08/13 14:29, Raúl García Castro wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I just updated the test cases document according to the current status
> of the specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130730/). You
> can find it here:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html
>
>
> Some new tests have appeared and some were removed. Right now, for LDP
> Core we don't have much of them (5 for LDPRs and 7 for LDPCs).
>
> A couple of things to comment:
>
> Clarification in 4.5.2
> ----------------------
>
> "4.5.2 [...] LDPR servers that require conditional requests MUST respond
> with status code 428 (Precondition Required) when the absence of a
> precondition is the only reason for rejecting the request [RFC6585]."
>
> Conditional GETs can be defined with different request header fields
> (If-Modified-Since, If-Unmodified-Since, If-Match, If-None-Match, and
> If-Range).
>
> Therefore, I think that the requirement needs to be updated since there
> are two possible interpretations for that requirement:
>
> .- "LDPR servers that require conditional requests" refers to all the
> types of conditional GETs. In this case we are just forcing servers to
> use 428, which is defined as optional.
> .- "LDPR servers that require conditional requests" refers only to
> conditional GETs defined using If-Match (i.e., those mentioned above in
> the paragraph). In this case we are forcing servers to use 428 only with
> If-Match, remaining optional for the other types of conditional GETs.
>
> The original intention seems to be the second option, but I think that
> the requirement needs to be reworded to avoid misunderstandings (e.g.,
> "LDPR servers that require the HTTP If-Match header ...").
>
> No tests on PUT
> ---------------
>
> Since the use of the If-Match header (4.5.2) is optional, we are not
> imposing any absolute requirement on PUT apart from the following:
>
> "4.4.1 If HTTP PUT is performed on an existing resource, LDPR servers
> MUST replace the entire persistent state of the identified resource with
> the entity representation in the body of the request."
>
> In it, we are saying that a resource state will always be replaced by
> the content of any PUT. I.e., a test for this would be to make a PUT and
> then a GET and to check that what you get back is the same as the entity
> in the body of the PUT.
>
> However, I think that it is not the intended behaviour of PUT and most
> implementations would not pass this test (at least non-generic LDP
> servers). Therefore, this requirement is included in the list of
> non-testable requirements.
>
> As a consequence, right now we don't have any test for PUT (in LDP Core).
>
> Kind regards,
>

-- 
Sergio Fernández
Salzburg Research
+43 662 2288 318
Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
A-5020 Salzburg (Austria)
http://www.salzburgresearch.at

Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 08:56:21 UTC