- From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:24:06 -0800
- To: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Hi Ashok, Thank you for contributing test cases for URI domain expression + WSDL 11 Element Identifiers (feature 23). We think your unit test case approach is simple and pragmatic. I found few minor (very minor) typos in test case 2: a) s/#wsdl11.binding.input(A11Binding/Echo)/#wsdl11.binding.input(A12Binding/Echo)/ b) s/#wsdl11.binding.output(A11Binding/Echo)/#wsdl11.binding.output(A12Binding/Echo)/ We request you to consider the following two items: 1) If the expected outcome (WSDL with policies in-lined) of these unit tests were included then implementers could verify their output using the expected outcome. 2) The first step to meet CR exit criteria on external policy attachment is to provide implementers with sufficient CR test coverage for external policy attachment. This includes test cases for feature 22 (URI domain expression + IRI References for WSDL 20 components) and feature 23. We are wondering if a similar approach could be used for feature 22 and if you would provide such test cases for feature 22. Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu Microsoft Corporation -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:42 PM To: public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: Testcases for External Attachment -- feature 22 Please take a look at the attached file. Thanks to Asir for some comments and corrections. The policies and the WSDL have been lifted from the round 3 scenarios. I thought using the same materials would make life easier for the testers. All the best, Ashok
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 23:24:30 UTC