W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2001

Test Assertion Subgroup 1

From: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:33:59 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
At the face-to-face meeting on 29 Nov 2001, our subgroup examined SOAP 1.2 
Part 1, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4
The following Testable Assertions had no tests specified: A1, A4, A5, A6, 
A7, A8, A8.1, A8.2, A8.6, A9, A9.1, A9.2, A9.3, A10, A11, others....

Our subgroup identified (1st pass) several test cases for some of these 
testable assertions.  More work is needed.

Note, this work is based on
SOAP Version 1.2 Test Collection, 2001/11/16 21:06:05, and
SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1 and Part Specifications, 2001/11/08 14:16:59.

The test collection document needs to be updated to reflect the current 
specs, which may change the information below.

Section 1 is an introduction and has no testable assertions.

Section 2
A1, A2, A3, A3.1, A4, A5, A6, A7

A1.  Motherhood.  No specific tests needed.  The rest of the test 
collection provides tests for specific areas.  So A1 is not really 
testable.  Therefore, consider deleting A1.

Note.  Round 2 SOAP Interoperability Tests Specification: Header Processing 
[1] provides test cases that should be added to the test collection for A2.
[1] http://www.whitemesa.com/interop/proposalC.html

A2T1 (Actor = next)broken , actor only allowed on headers.  Replace with [1].
A2T2 (Actor = ...tested) broken, actor only allowed on headers.  Replace 
with [1].

A2 needs more tests.
- actor that won't be processed
- multiple actors/headers
- negative case, 1 header for "next", node in B
nothing changes
- multiple nexts, all processed
[A | next | A, next | add B to all preceeding ]
6 tests
A3.  anonymous actor
A3T1 looks good as is.

A3.1 must not act in role of "none"
A3.1T1 add header with actor "none"
A3.1T2 add header with actor "none" bogus namespace URI
and is processed

A4.  mustUnderstand (mU)
A4T1. send mU to target - must be processed (body=echo)
A4T2. send unknown mU - target = fault
   -  confirm fault code
   -  confirm fault header (misunderstood; not mandatory)
A4T3. send 1 known (echo) header + unknown mU header
   -  same as above
   -  confirm no echo header
(note - will overlap with processing model)

A5: MU Faults
Comments: Covered by A4T3, A4T2

A6: MU=true Processing
Comments: Covered by A4T1

A7: Intermediary Header Processing
Send message with explicitly targeted block,
one "next", one unknown-URI, one untargeted block(no actor).

Actor Intermediary-A End
------- -------------- -------
<A> -> Process/remove n/a
<next> -> Process/remove n/a
<U> -> passthru Process/remove
<-> -> passthru Process/remove
Mix-n-match order and number of each times each header
appears in the message(0,1,2,...n).

Section 3
A8, A8.1, A8.2, A8.3, A8.6
(not reviewed at F2F)

Section 4
(not reviewed at F2F)

In addition, we discussed some test cases (attached), which have not yet 
been mapped back to testable assertions.

Another observation:  All test cases assume that applications are developed 
explicitly for the test; the tests would not work with a bare bones SOAP 
processor (without applications deployed).  This was discussed at the F2F 
meeting, which noted that a test configuration may need to be discussed in 
the test document.


Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2001 17:34:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:17 UTC