[ebxml-iic-interop] RE: [ebxml-iic] Face-to-face follow-up

Steve:

 

Great 
summary. A few questions:

- 2.5: 
We could assume here that the SyncReplyMode only requires synchronous MSH 
signals 

(so 
then we'll receive the Ack "immediately" with HTTP response, separate 
from business response.)

-  we will need to detail the CPA data for each test 
case.

- I am 
not sure what 2.6 brings in addition to 2.8 plus 2.1.

- as 
we separate MSH config from CPA, can we specify what it contains? (besides HTTP 
config?)

- 
next, we need to detail the steps of the test cases.

 

Cheers,

 

Jacques

 

 

 

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Yung 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 10:13 
  PM
Cc: 
Subject: Re: 
  [ebxml-iic] Face-to-face follow-up

Hi All, 
  
Attached are the test cases that we decided on Friday.  As a note to 
  those who did not attend, the team felt the that have a pretty good cut of the 
  basic profile and that the reliable messaging profile may need more work in 
  terms of test cases. 
  
Cheers, 
Steve 
  
Jacques Durand wrote: 
    
    
Team: 
    
Thanks for your participation in this week 
    face-to-face, 
(even if it was virtual, by 
    call-in...) 
We definitely made good progress in 
    identifying/addressing several sticky issues, 
that 
    were still lingering. I feel we are getting close to completion, and 
    
was quite encouraged by the review of the 70+ conformance 
    test cases definitions. 
    
Nevertheless, the next OASIS submission deadline(September 
    1) is too short 
as: 
(1) we 
    won't get feedback in time from the MS TC on the 216 test 
    requirements 
we submitted to them, 
(2) there is still significant editorial work to do, 
    
(3) plus an internal IIC review. 
(4) I also would like to get feedback from UCC/DGI as well as ECOM 
    on our 
interoperability test suite before we submit 
    to OASIS. 
    
We will stage intermediate deliverables until September 30, 
    which should be the date 
we can publish the test 
    suites on our site. 
    
A few more things: 
    
1. No call this Monday. Next call scheduled for Tuesday 
    Sept 3rd, 10 am. 
Anyone hosting the call? 
    
2. Because we are close to delivering, we should consider a 
    weekly call 
(instead of bi-weekly) until we submit 
    for review. 
Would every Monday 10am be a good 
    time? 
    
3. Follows a list of action items we agreed on. We expect 
    significant progress 
on these by next conf call. 
    NOTE: names associated are those who commit closure 
on this item, does not mean that others can't contribute... 
    
Regards, 
    
Jacques 
    
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

    
1. [Jacques, Jeff T., Matt]: Need to finalize the 
    interoperability test harness, 
in particular the 
    way Test Cases are driven from application level (e.g. for 
interoperability tests). 
    
2. [Matt]: review, refine (and rename?) the definition of 
    the -minimal- set of actions of 
the Test Service. 
    Under question: the need for "Mute" action? "configurator" action? 
    
Capture of errors.  The effect of invoking these 
    actions need be communicated 
in some way (e.g. 
    response message, notification) to the Test Driver which should 
    
track each test step. 
    
3. [Mike, Jacques]: Test Case script material (table 
    format, test steps, etc.) 
to be further improved, 
    before expanding to more test cases, based on comments 
at f-2-f. 
    
4. [Matt, Hatem]: Specification and format of a subset of 
    CPA elements 
needed for MS test cases. 
    
5. [Jeff Turpin]: Review of current message template 
    material (see draft test suites), 
definition of 
    templates and parameterization mechanism, how to build the entire 
    
MIME envelope (e.g. predefined envelope templates? 
    XPath-based manipulations?) 
    
6. [Steve]: Interoperability Test Cases we went through 
    (currently in profiles #1 and #2), 
to be described 
    in a more precise way (CPA data needed, 
message 
    material, test steps, invoked action in test Service, 
success and failure condition). 
    
7. [Hatem, Jacques]: Review of UCC/DGI test suite, 
    
mapping to the IIC interoperability test suite. 
    
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
    
NOTE: This list of items does not include yet the final 
    completion of the detailed content 
of all Test 
    Cases for both the conformance suite and the interoperability test 
    suite. 
- The above Items, in particular #3, #4, #5 
    are a pre-requisite for this completion. 
- 
    COmpletion of interoperability test suite (especially its packaging in 
    profile(s)) 
may also be influenced by #7. 
    
  
 

  
-- 
Steve Yung,  
Market Development Manager 
  
Web Services/XML Development 
Sun Microsystems 
Phone: 
  +1-650-786-8469 
Fax: +1-650-786-3674