- 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[-psd i think this has now been replaced by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