RE: Minutes - WS-Addressing Test Suite TF call 5 Jan 2006

Could we actually go one step further here?  It would be nice if
receiver implementations knew what test was actually being run in a
standard way, so that they could do validation correctly.

Can we all standardize on strings like this:

[test1100] anything here

In other words, "[" + test name + "]" + string

I think this will end up making our lives (and log files) MUCH easier.
We could either keep the idea of faulting on something like this:

[test1133] fault

Or just fault on an empty "string":

[test1133]

Thoughts?
--G 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
> Of David Illsley
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:47 AM
> To: paul.downey@bt.com
> Cc: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org; 
> public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Minutes - WS-Addressing Test Suite TF call 5 Jan 2006
> 
> 
> Having agreed on the call last night that the testname should 
> be moved into the echo string itself rather than be an 
> attribute (because having it as an attribute changes the 
> required schema) I realised why it is that way... so that 
> messages which attempt to generate a fault by sending the 
> empty string still have the test string in them somewhere. 
> 
> I've spoken to Paul and agreed that we'll modify the 
> operation semantics for notify and echo so that either an 
> empty text string or a text string beginning with the string 
> 'fault' should cause a fault. This shouldn't break any 
> existing implementations of the test suite and should be 
> minimal work to add recognition of 'fault'. We will then be 
> free to trigger faults using strings like fault-test1133 
> 
> David 
> 
> David Illsley
> Web Services Development
> IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
> david.illsley@uk.ibm.com 
> 
> 
> 
> <paul.downey@bt.com>
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org 
> 
> 05/01/2006 21:55 To
> <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>
> cc
> Subject
> Minutes - WS-Addressing Test Suite TF call 5 Jan 2006
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Present: 
>  David Illsley (IBM)
>  Mike Vernal (Microsoft)
>  Mark Nottingham (WG Chair)
>  Giovanni Boschi
>  Kim Palko
>  Glen Daniels (Sonic and Apache)
>  Paul Downey (BT)
> 
> 
> agenda+ Action items
> 
> ACTION: pauld to flag which tests are for CORE, SOAP, WSDL CR
> (PENDING)
> 
> (not discussed!)
> 
> -----
> 
> Glen concerned about lack of non-anonymous test cases and 
> combinations thereof:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/issues/#test15
> 
> Glen: to supply non-anon ReplyTo/FaultTo test cases based 
> upon existing operations.
> 
> These shouldn't impact those implementing the current 
> operations as services. 
> 
> Implementations are not required to generate each and every 
> test case message - though expected to process and respond 
> correctly to messages sent to them. We can use a canned 
> client to send specific requests.
> 
> ACTION: Paul to make his canned implementation available
> 
> -----
> 
> agenda+ Dispatching by Action
> 
> GED (v) Action, specific testing required in this round of CR?
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests
> /2006Jan/0007.html
> 
> Consensus on the call: we're happy with the Status Quo of the 
> tests for Vancouver - i.e. echoIn and echoOut message bodies 
> enabling processing keyed by Action and/or GED.
> 
> WSDL CR testing may include tests to prove dispatching on the 
> action, should that be deemed appropriate.
> 
> -----
> 
> agenda+ Features not covered by tests
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/features/
> 
> * wsa:RelatesTo/@RelationshipType defaulting
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/features/#core07
> 
> David suggests an echo followed by a notify as one way of 
> proving a relationship.
> 
> requiring defaulting  of RelationshipType is tricky
> - as with the notify tests, implementations may not be able 
> to generate all of the messages. 
> 
> ACTION: Paul to write a RelatesTo test 
> 
> Again a 'canned' server may be used to send defaulted and 
> undefaulted replies to test clients.
> 
> * optional faults 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/features/#soap07
> 
> Lack of test cases - Glen raises it would be interesting to 
> know who had implemented what error codes - Paul remains 
> concerned how many are testable or implicitly imply order of 
> processing.  
> 
> ACTION: Paul to enumerate missing fault code tests
> ACTION: Paul to elicit which fault codes have been implemented
> 
> -----
> 
> agenda+ Other Issues
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/issues/
> 
> ....
> 
> -----
> 
> agenda+ The interoperability Event
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005D
> ec/0034.html
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite#status
> 
> Unclear if running implementations on laptops will be 
> available outside the hotel / room. Ideally endpoints should 
> be publicly available.
> 
> 
> -----
> 
> agenda+ Status of implementations
> 
> IBM, Microsoft, Axis2 confirmed on the call, 
> Axis C/C++, Sonic, Sun and JBOSS possibly 
> ready for Vancouver.
> 
> Paul asks that implementations should be able to optionally
> send the test case number as content (not as additional elements or
> attributes which would require the WSDL changing the Schema element 
> from an xs:string into ComplexType.) as described:
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/#operations
> 
> -----
> Previous meetings:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests
> /2005Dec/0033.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests
> /2005Dec/0016.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests
> /2005Dec/0003.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests
> /2005Nov/0001.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests
> /2005Oct/0004.html
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 15:20:07 UTC