Re: Move to PR, with one caveat, PLEASE REVIEW


On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:45:12 +0100, Eric Johnson wrote:
> We finally had a call yesterday with the appropriate parties, and we 
> did get approval to proceed to PR, with one caveat.
> During the review it was pointed out to me that we did not flag the 
> following as an assertion:
> "If the message is formatted as a JMS BytesMessage, then the sender 
> and receiver MUST use the writeBytes() and readBytes() methods, 
> respectively."
> I wrapped this in the appropriate "assert" XML, and tagged it Protocol-2073.
> The second concern is that this isn't tested by our test suite, nor 
> is it marked as "untestable."
> I specifically touched these files:
> soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.xml
> soapjms/soapjms.xml
> testcases/assertions/assertions.xsl
> soapjms/testcases/testcases/testcases.xml
> (The first two of the above to add the actual "assert" XML wrapper 
> around the text that raised the issue.
> The XSL file I changed to output "untestable by test cases" when the 
> test cases cannot test something.
> Finally, testcases.xml I updated to mark Protocol-2072 tested by 
> three tests that are currently marked as using TextMessage.)
> I regenerated test assertions and the spec files, and I ended up 
> touching the following as well:
> soapjms/ackcurrent.xml
> soapjms/ackold.xml
> soapjms/document-assertion-table.xml
> soapjms/soapjms-2010-10-CR.html
> soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html
> soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.xml
> soapjms/soapjms.html
> soapjms/testcases/assertions/assertions.html
> soapjms/testcases/testcases/testcases.html
> You can inspect updated files via URL, for example:
> Please let me know if you approve or disapprove of the changes.
> -Eric.
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.

Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 16:51:25 UTC