RE: [ebxml-iic] about 3.5 in spec

Title: about 3.5 in spec

Mike:

 

agree 
with your comments.

 

I see 
one remaining snag with $MessageId the way we use it:

 

test 
cases 182 and 187 (multi-hop) actually need $MessageId in step #3, to come 
from

the 
message send in step #1, not from message sent in step #2, I believe (we want to 
correlate the 

If 
thats teh case, two ways to handle this:

(1) 
could use either  an assignment notation, i.e. a second

expression at the end of a message expression, add: $myMessageId = 
<XPath>

(2) 
reintroduce "$RefToMessageId" as coming from RefToMessageId of the message in 
previous step (either sent or received)

Opinion?

 

 

Jacques

 

 

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kass 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 
  10:26 AM
To: Jacques Durand; 
  
Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] about 3.5 in 
  spec

  
Jacques,

  
 

  
    Attached is the latest draft 
  MS Conformance Spec, version 0.96

  
Please see comments below.

  
 

  
Thanks,

  
Mike

  
 

  
 

  
    
----- Original Message ----- 

    
From: 
    Jacques Durand 

    
To: 'Michael Kass' ;  
    

    
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 1:19 
    PM

    
Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic] about 3.5 in 
    spec

    

    
Mike:

    
 

    
Front page should show right date, and also 
    version

    
(and it is called now a "Committee Draft" V0.95)

    
 

    
 

    
Comments mostly on the "parameters", which was the main remaining 
    issue:

    
 

    
 

    
---------------------------------

    
3.3.2: Message 
    content parameters - 
    Preceded with a '$' symbol, these parameters represent dynamic message 
    content used to both construct an ebXML message as well as evaluate returned 
    message conformance. These parameters and their description are listed in 
    section 3.5.2.

    
 

    
>should 
    be : "...are listed in section 3.5.1"

    
 

    
[MIKE] 
    - Fixed

    
 

    
---------------------------------

    
3.3.2: 
    we need to say a word on the notion of "test step".  We can reuse def 
    from Test Framework 3.3.1, e.g.:

    
"A 
    Test Case is a sequence of Test Steps. A Test Step is an aggregate of one or 
    more operations on the implementation under test. A Test Step usually 
    involves a single message sending or receiving operation, plus some data 
    verification, like checking or enforcing a condition on message header.  A Test Step may also include 
    conditional actions that are a basis for the execution of the assertion 
    within the Test Step itself."

    
---------------------------------

    
 

    
[MIKE] 
    - Added similar wording for Test Case, Test Step..etc 
    descriptions

    
 

    
About 
    parameters: we should get rid of $CPAId:

    
testcase_27.4: 
    "eb:CPAId=$CPAId 
    " , why not refer to one of our predefined CPAId ike in other test cases? 
    

    
Same for 27.5 and other places. I guess we can do without 
    $CPAId.

    
---------------------------------

    
 

    
Table 
    of parameters in 3.5.1 below need a few words about *when* these parameters 
    are set, as the expressions where they are used assume they are 
    set,

    
and 
    we should get rid of those that are 
unused.

    
 

    

    
      
      

        
          
CPAId (suggest to get rid 
          of)

          
 

          
[MIKE] - 
          Removed

        
          
Reference to one of 13 MSH configuration 
          instances described in section 
          3.5.3

      

        
          
ConversationId

          
 

        
          
As defined in [ebMS]. Represents the 
          ConversationId associated with a particular test case (will remain the 
          same for all test steps of the test 
          case).

          
 

          
[MIKE] - 
        Aded

      

        
          
Service (not used here)

          
 

          
[MIKE] - 
          Removed

        
          
For this abstract test suite:  
          urn:ebxml:iic:test

      

        
          
Action (not used here)

          
 

          
[MIKE] - 
          Removed

        
          
As defined in 
          [ebMS]

      

        
          
SenderParty 
          (instead of using a parameter, e.g. in test case 
          #90, can't we just directly refer to the From/PartyId element in the 
          received message? Same for multi-hop test 
          cases)

          
 

          
[MIKE] - I 
          believe that using such a syntax would "break" our XPath meaning, and 
          confuse the test writer, since we really have no logical way 
          to describe this relationship in an XPath expression.  I 
          believe that a simple $SenderParty parameter is much easier to 
          understand.

        
          
The From/PartyId message 
          value

      

        
          
ReceiverParty 
          (not used 
          here)

          
 

          
[MIKE] - 
          Removed

        
          
The To/PartyId message 
          value

      

        
          
MessageId 
          (we still have expressions with some of these 
          left: I thought we decided to get rid of 
          them)

          
 

          
[I removed 
          those that were not necessary however $MessageId is still necessary 
          for RefToMessageId, StatusResponse and  Acknowledgment test case 
          verification ( verification must be done that they are referring to 
          the correct previous message), so I have left those in for tests 41, 
          43, 101, 134, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 
        

        
          
As defined in 
          [ebMS]

      

        
          
RefToMessageId

          
 

          
[MIKE] - I changed $RefToMessageId to 
          $MessageId, since they are semantically equivalent.  Therefore 
          there is no need for both of these 
        parameters.

        
          
As defined in [ebMS]. Represents the message 
          ID value of the message that was manipulated in the previous test 
          step, e.g. of the latest message sent or 
          received.

    
 

    
---------------------------------------

    
The parameterized example in Sec 3.5.2 should not show parameters 
    that are not used in the test suite.

    
 

    
 

    
[MIKE] - Fixed that.

    
 

    
Regards,

    
 

    
Jacques

    
 

    
 

    
      
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kass 
      [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 
      2003 8:56 AM
To: Jacques Durand; 
      
Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] about 
      3.5 in spec

      
Jacques and all,

      
 

      
 Please see my comments 
      below.   Also, I've attached V0.95 based on comments 
      below.

      
 

      
Regards,

      
Mike

      
 

      
        
----- Original Message -----