W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org > March 2006

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

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:12:13 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC95225504BFE884@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>


> 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. 

Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 17:12:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:29:02 UTC