RE: test1149 and test1249 [was RE: New test]

public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org wrote on 20/03/2006 17:12:13:

> 
> 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
> 

+1

David

David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
david.illsley@uk.ibm.com