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

+1

paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> 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
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 08:41:47 UTC