- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:12:13 -0000
- To: <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>
Glen, > I'm not exactly sure why this should be any different than, for > instance, tests 1140 and 1143... 1140 tests a required feature, and 1143 > tests the same required feature but for a different case. They're both > important and both marked REQUIRED. yup, a couple of weeks ago I'd have made it REQUIRED. > Just because the assertions are already "covered" by different tests > doesn't mean that this test isn't checking a piece of required behavior, > and in fact one which most implementations are currently doing > incorrectly. agreed, 100%! > Personally, I'd leave it REQUIRED, since it's not testing an optional > feature and it covers a case the other tests don't. *shrug* In terms of the report, cr='REQUIRED' means we want to demonstrate the testcase interoperating between 4 implementations before moving the Core and SOAP specifications from CR to PR, 'OPTIONAL' means 2 implementations should pass and 'INFORMATIONAL' is a bucket for all other testcases which have merit. If we have another round of testing for CR, then I'd agree making this 'REQUIRED' adds good value, as it is I think it would invalidate the CR report for little gain in terms of the spec. Paul
Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 17:12:23 UTC