- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:22:34 +0100
- To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709E16A@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
In fulfilment of my long outstanding action item, here my attempt to use the test case submission form [1] and some feedback. I wanted to use an important use-case we have within BT, whereby the request is sent using HTTP and the response comes back over a different transport, but it seems like this and other use-cases are still the subject of discussion over in the async task force[2]. So instead i elected to try out the third in the set of scenarios submitted by Microsoft[3]. Paul [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-addressing/2005Jan/ 0022.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-async-tf/ [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Mar/ 0209.html {To submit a test case, send an email to the list } [-psd guess we need a dedicated list?] Subject: Test Case - Echo Request-Response over HTTP Body: { - Test Class (pick one): -- Conformance -- Interoperability -- Composibility -- Limit test/error handling } [-psd I'm actually unsure what to put here, forced to choose 1 i'll go for 'Conformance'. however i'd prefer to be able to categorise a test case with a series of 'tags'. 'Interoperability' seems somewhat redundant to me. ] Test Class: Conformance { - IPR classification (according to the policy http://www.w3.org/2004/06/29-testcases, select one ) [-psd i think this has now been replaced by http://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-testcases, the Microsoft scenarios were published under the W3C Document license, i think this allows me to choose] IPR Classification: Test Case Grant I http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/testgrants-200409/ { Related WSA Specification: Core | SOAP Binding | WSDL Binding } [-psd am i expected to put only one here? Multiple tags would seem to apply in this case,] Specifications: Core, SOAP 1.1 Binding, WSDL 1.1 Binding Detailed Description: This scenario tests a request response with an address in the ReplyTo. Message Exchange: 1. Client sends a request message to the Server. 2. Server sends an HTTP 202 to the Client. 3. Server sends a response message to the Client. 4. Client sends an HTTP 202 to the Server. [-psd i like this simple exchange format, should we make it more formal and a part of the form?] Expected response string must be same as request input string Input for the Test Case: request.xml Expected Results: response.xml See also service.wsdl (not attached this for the purposes of this try-out) [-psd i think we should require example SOAP messages and WSDL where applicable to be attached and be well-formed XML] EOF
Attachments
- application/octet-stream attachment: request.xml
- application/octet-stream attachment: response.xml
Received on Monday, 28 March 2005 20:23:07 UTC