Title: interop update
Well
thanks jacques,
in that case here are my comments on the 0.40
document
Introduction 1 states conformance testing (should be interoperability
correct ?)
It
seems the document needs to have an interoperability definition and motivation
statement.
The
term is used everywhere but only defined in Appendix A (which BTW follows
Appendix B ???) and properly differentiated from
conformance.
I
would specifically add a Pre Requesite heading section stipulating the
conformance to have passed prior to running interop.
I was
also thinking over the Test Service & Test Driver framework and wondering
about
having
the Test Service be initiated with ebXML messages itself and having
notifications and events signalled via messages.
This
has the advantage of keeping the Test Driver and Test Service separate and using
ebXML messagging as the logging and tracing.
It
also means we can configured the Test Service entirely through a message - with
the test cases as payload. The conversation_ID with the Test
Driver
determines the Test Case being referenced. With timeouts the Test Driver
can determine test failure. So the Test Driver is both initiatior and logger of
the test run, but the actuall testing occurs between candidate
MSH's.
it
seems we need a template, as the tests will be very similar and only certain
tests will be excluded rather than different.
It
seems more appropriate to list all tests and have a PreCondition table stating
for what protocols it applies to.
That
way all testers step through each Test Case and test if needed otherwise skip to
next one.
Or
alternatively write up the Test Cases in one section and make a table with
checkmarks on which protocols apply to the Test Case.
e.g.
Test
Case 1.1 No payload basic exchange
Protocols [HTTP,SMTP]
...
Test
Case 1.12 Synchronous Unsigned Acknowledgement
exchange
Protocols [HTTP]
I
think with some more discussion and thought about the test framework - namely
the test driver/test service we could more thoroughly
go
through the test steps.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Durand
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002
11:14 AM
To: 'Eric VanLydegraf'
Cc:
''
Subject: RE:
[ebxml-iic-interop] interop update
Yes,
latest draft is 0.4 you got by mail. Not posted yet on our
site.
We
need to review in particular Section 3:
-
the detail of the test steps for each test case.
-
the notion of having two "basic interop profiles", concretized by a test
suite for HTTP,
and
another test suite for SMTP. (no "option" inside a
profile.)
-
the content of these basic interop profiles (as drafted, they roughly match
what remains
from
the DGI tests, after removing (a) conformance tests, (b) optional tests, (c)
specific tests like large payloads.)
Cheers,
Jacques
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric VanLydegraf
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 6:06
PM
To: 'Jacques Durand';
''
Subject: RE:
[ebxml-iic-interop] interop update
Just to confirm 0.40 is the latest interop document
?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Durand
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, September 09,
2002 5:45 PM
To:
''
Subject:
[ebxml-iic-interop] interop update
Steve, Hatem, Eric:
Here is an incremental update of the Interop
suite document, for your review
based
on improvement we discussed in past conf calls as well as F-2-F.
- Section 1.2 (concept of operations) is
expanded.
- References to third-party tests (here, DGI)
has been removed, as this is a general, abstract test suite,
that will be used as a reference by third
parties. Comparisons with UCC/DGI test suite will be done
separately,
as we expect for other
existing test suites (ECOM). (We'll need to do such "comparative
evaluations"
if only as a basis for
discussion when negotiating with these entities, so that they understand
how "compliant"
they are with our
tests, and also so that they can give feedback on what may be missing in
ours.
- list of Actions of Test Service
(Section 2.2) is slightly updated (configurator, also the message sending
behavior
of all these actions is the
same whether the Test Service is associated or not with a Test
Driver.)
- still need to refine the way a Test Driver
will drive the test cases by directly invoking the Test Service
"Initiator" action.
- only one interop profile test suite described
here for HTTP (Section 3), based on Steve's list of test cases
as we went through in F-2-F.
It is roughly equivalent to: { DGI, minus
conformance tests, minus optional tests, minus HTTP/S }
Detail of test cases (test steps, CPA...) still needs to
borrow from Mike's material.
Still to
discuss: idea that there is an interop profile for HTTP, another vfor
SMTP. (see Section 3.3)
Regards,
Jacques
<<ebxml_ms_interoperability_testsuite_0.4.doc>>
