Mike,
The reason I said "appropriate exception" was because in the case where
the exception is not specified, it still won't make sense to have a
ArithmeticException or TypeNotPresentException or something of that
nature. That would indicate that there is something else going on.
But I suppose we can't categorically say which exceptions are
disallowed. So I would be ok with what you suggest but perhaps with some
explanatory text.
-Anish
--
On 2/22/2011 7:41 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I would not separate the Positive and Negative tests in the way Anish
> proposes. I see no purpose in this.
>
> Each testcase has some expected output - whether some positive response
> or an exception - and the thing
> that matters is that the actual response matches the expectation.
>
> A further problem with the proposed wording is that "appropriate
> exceptions" is a misleading thing in that only in a subset of
> cases is the exception specific - in other cases a general exception is
> all that the spec describes. Also, for many of the cases
> where a SPECIFIC exception is expected, it usually involves cases where
> the Java API is being used - and in these cases
> the testcase catches the exception in the code under test and validates
> that it is the correct exception - reporting back to the
> test client a POSITIVE response typically along the lines "TEST_xxxx
> expected FooBar exception received" ;-)
>
> So I'd prefer a simpler set of words:
>
> "An implementation that claims to conform to this specification MUST be
> able to run all applicable Tests in
> Section 2 TestCases, producing the Expected Output.
>
> Note that conforming to this specification is considered a necessary
> though not a sufficient condition to conform to the [POJO] specification."
>
>
> Yours, Mike
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Mike Edwards Mail Point 146, Hursley Park
> STSM Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN
> SCA & Services Standards United Kingdom
> Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC
> IBM Software Group
> Phone: +44-1962 818014
> Mobile: +44-7802-467431 (274097)
> e-mail:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Anish Karmarkar <>
> To: David Booz <>, Bryan Aupperle <>,
> Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Ashok Malhotra <>,
> Martin Chapman <>
> Date: 21/02/2011 16:15
> Subject: Fwd: Issue 227: conformance section
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> OASIS email seems to be done. Here is my email from yesterday.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Issue 227: conformance section
> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:34:51 -0800
> From: Anish Karmarkar <>
> To: OASIS Java <>
>
> Here is a proposal for replacing the conformance section of POJO CI
> testcase document to resolve issue 227[1]:
>
> ----
> Normative code artifacts related to this specification are considered to
> be authoritative and take precedence over specification text.
>
> An implementation that claims to conform to this specification MUST meet
> the following conditions:
> 1. The implementation is able to run all applicable Positive Tests in
> Section 2 TestCases producing the Expected Output.
> 2. The implementation is able to run all applicable Negative Tests in
> Section 2 TestCases producing appropriate exceptions.
>
> Note that conforming to this specification is considered a necessary
> though not a sufficient condition to conform to the [POJO] specification.
>
> [The non-normative ref section will have to be updated to include the
> POJO CI spec reference].
>
> ----
>
> If we wanted to go further along the lines of what we discussed at the
> last call. Section 11.3 of the POJO spec should be updated to append the
> following:
>
> "7. The implementation MUST meet all the conformance requirements
> defined by the SCA-J POJO Component Implementation v1.1 TestCases
> [POJO-TC]."
>
> [The normative ref section will have to be updated to include the POJO
> TC reference]
>
> Comments?
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> [1]
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/opencsa/sca-j/sca-j-pojo-ci-1.1-testcases-1.0-csprd01.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>
