4 May 2006


See also: IRC log






<bob_> we are working on the phone

<bob_> the axe seemed to work.

<bob_> folks to send in testamonials ASAP like yesterday

test framework

<pauld> points the WG at the SOAP/core WSDL documents as a starting point: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/documents/wsdl11/

<pauld> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/documents/wsdl20/

<bob_> tom: Will the test wsdl do all the way to the end services:

<pauld> they're escaped inside this document: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/documents/

<pauld> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/documents/#wsdl11/wsaTestService.wsdl

Bob: checking links sent by Paul

<scribe> scribe:Paco

Bob: checking the links that Paul sent

Paul: wsdl describe an exchange and there is an expectation of certain messages/behaviors to take place

<pauld> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/documents/epr/epr3.xml

Jonathan: we can take out Paul's document and throw our markup - in WSDL require tru and false flavors

Glen: Binding A/B/C have using addressing required/no or no marker

<pauld> we also have testcases 1107 and 1207 which exchanged refps containing WSDL documents: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/testcases/#test1107

Jonathan: The WSDL we have implies addressing is required

Hugo: this is WSDL 2.0

Bob: (opens wsdl 1.1 document)

Jonathan: try to have the fewer # of WSDLs

(Philippe edits document)

Gil: remember that we don't want to modify a binding of the protocol test files, this needs to be a new binding

<gil> exactly

Jonathan: a test maps to one message exchange, i.e. one operation

Anish: need to use separate endpoints, since incompatible bindings cannot live on the same endpoint.

Philippe: we added UsingAddressing to the binding with wsdl:require=true; now we add a second one with required=false, adding a new port

Anish: should not actually provide the service since the address depends on each implementation - just leave a pattern

Philippe: next, we put addressing on the port

Anish: markup cannot be in both the binding and the port
... need 3 bindings - usingaddr required, usingaddr not required, and no usingaddr specified

Gil: can we import the binding used for the core tests?

Anish: better have self contained wsdl documents, importing gets complex

Jonathan: there are message artifacts defined, we need to check those

<pauld> avoiding import/include is worth going for - if necessary I suggest using XSLT/Perl to assemble test documents from parts

Jonathan: the overview document in the testcases folder may have the list of messages and tests
... the "message" links in each test point to the right messages

Anish: wsdl required=false needs two messages, w/ and w/o wsa headers
... we can use the same messages with the right modification in all cases

Bob: at this point it is clear that we need to pick someone to lead the testing activity, be the point of coordination as Paul and friends did before
... we should create a new tree, testsuitewsdl
... similar structure as with testcases

Jonathan: not everything is needed however

Bob: makes a testcases, documents subdirectories
... breaking now, back at 10:30

<bob_> hi foilks, lets restart

Bob: we have a first cut at a test WSDL into the documents directory
... how do we get to a more complete expansion of these test cases and parse the work out
... back to the features table from yesterday
... seems that the MEPs section in there needs to be expanded; each MEP will be as much work as some other features
... I would like to see someone volunteer to lead the test work; otherwise we'll do it in committee
... no one here
... I asked Paul, who did an excellent work last time. But it is unfair to ask him again
... we thank Paul once again

Gil: item #1 is to find the resource

Bob: it is actually to find out who will be participating in the testing from each company, then pick the primary lead from that set
... by next call, each company participating in the implementation will identify the person leading their implementation work

<pauld> agree with Glen that setting the bar to be 'provide a complete testcase' is a good goal, but that puts people off submitting testcases

Bob: even if we have people contributing pat of their time, we need someone to make sure the quality and completeness of the work is good enough

<pauld> I note the interop event drove the last round, more than my personal involvement, fwiw

<scribe> ACTION: companies participating in the testing identify their implementation leaders [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]

Paul: in addition to the AI, we can construct a representative test to seed people's work

Jonathan: we need to be more orgazided that in other cases (XQuery) where different people submit test cases

Bob: let's set 5/15 to be the due date for the action item above
... we identified the end date of the CR period as 7/7
... can we have a date for the interop event?

Philippe: can we colocate with the WSDL meeting?

(discussion on possible locations)

Bob: possibility is MIT, the week of 7/10
... location is MIT, 18, 19 of July

<scribe> ACTION: Philippe to confirm availability of MIT location [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]

Glen: let's dig deeper into one test
... WSDL has usingaddressing, client sends the wsa headers, server responds with wsa headers
... we can take the ame we were editing
... binding has usingaddr with wsdlrequired=true
... question - do we have a canned server?

Paco: depends what are we testing, client, server or both

Glen: Both

Anish: server implementors publish their WSDL with specific endpoints

Glen: WSDl is generic except for endpoitns
... test presence of WSA headers in request and response

Gil: next is the same testing for the negative case - client sends no headers, server sends back the right fault

Glen: requires a 'broken' client - send same message w/o wsa headers

Anish: message is not arbitrary, it is the same headers w/o wsa headers
... next (3) same as 1 with usingaddr on the port/endpoint

Bob: (4) is like 2 with usingaddr on port/endpoint

TonyR: (5) is as 1 with wsdlrequired=false; client sends wsa headers, server sends back wsa headers

Glen: headers sent back from server have mU=false

Gil: (6) is same. client includes no wsa headers, server returns valid response w/o mU=true wsa headers

Anish: in 5, server can send mU=true in response
... we need 7, 8 with flip sides of 5 and 6

TonyR: there is no flipside, server must obey contract
... (7), port indicates using addr with wsdlrequired=true

TontR: (8) is as (7) with wsdlrequired=false

Bob: this gives us a first test pattern
... recessing till 1pm
... do we need WSDL test cases for all the MEPs in Section 5?

Glen: You can test solicit response and notification in WSA

<scribe> ACTION: Bob to flesh out MEPs into features table [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]

Bob: we may discover gaps as we go over the MEPs, don't want to go back to WD

Anish: we can compose common MEPs to do the more sophisticated ones

Jonathan: there are several possible cases among the WSDL 2.0 MEPs

Bob: we'll see how out-only MEPs go - but I would liek to make the argument that WSDL 1.1 is well understand once wefinish the 1.1 tests, and say we are waiting for more 2.0 implementations
... take a 2 step approach, with a status statement atthe end of the 1st one

Jonathan: can we mark some MEPs 'at risk'?

Hugo: no need to - it already says that MEPs are removed if not enough implementations are produced

Jonathan: then we should mark MEPs at risk in WSA as well

Hugo: we get rid of MEPs people don't implement

Bob: can we make this statement in teh status portion of the document?

<scribe> ACTION: at the point of progression to CR, need to put words saying that MEPs at risk in the WSDL 2.0 document are also at risk in this document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-minutes.html#action04]

Anish: is the SOAp response MEP a way to to out-only?

Glen: not the same, out is not a response

Paco: the SOAP MEP is like a client pulling a message, not a message push

Bob: question of Philippe regarding addressing 1.1. I am not for keeping WGs around w/o good justification
... is there value in extending to a future edition of WSA. Please all start considering that, put strawman concepts that we can discuss
... an extension to the charter could be the mechanisms to accomodate this requirements

Philippe: we ask this ot all WGs at this stage. there is also the question of how to deal with errata

Jonathan; having a group to to errata for WS specs gets more interesting as more WGs close down

<pauld> suggests colapsing Addressing errata into XMLP

<pauld> WS-Core?

TonyR: let the dust settle before moving ahead

Bob: back to the test cases
... we should go over Action

Anish simple - just stick the right value, either default or not

Anish: test (9) WSDL specifies wsaw:Action in messages, client sends action and gets the right message

<rsalz> leave

Paco: we need different operations to test server side dispatching

Anish: let's take a wsdl with 2 request response operations, same input message body and different Action values, returning different response message body and actions

Bob: that is test 11

Anish: for test 10, client sends default Action, server expects non-default one, sends specified fault back
... test 12, same as 11, using default action values

Glen: do we need to test that defaulting works?

Jonathan: we should isolate the correct generation of correct default action values so an error in this does not make all other tests fail

Bob: test (13) no explicit action value in WSDL, client generates messages with correct action values
... in 13, server responds with default action as well
... 14 is negative of 13: clent sends an actoin different from default, server faults

Hugo: are we testing Action returned by server?

Anish: yes, we do in all cases

Hugo: question is explicitly stating what form of action (explicit, default) is sent back by server. We need to clarify that the statements we make in the test case description applies to both client and server (default, non default)

Bob: coming to anonymous now

Anish: anonymous requires that usingAddressing is being used

Glen: we don't specify in the tests whether anonymous is being used or not

Anish: three values, required, optinal, prohibited; not-specified implies no behavior

Jonathan: send the right or wrong value, get the right response

Bob: (15) is UsingAnonymous=required, client sends and anonymous replyTo, gets response on back-channel

Anish: 16 is the same, negative test, non anonymous reply and fault is sent back in back channel
... 17, 18 are same, adding the markup on the binding/operation element
... actually, we don;t need 15, 16, anonymous marker can only go on the operation

Bob: 17 says anonymous is prohibited; 18 is the negative of that

Anish: this is the weird one, where you send the fault back other than the back channel

TonyR: test needs to say the fault is sent to the ERP encoded on the faultTo EPR; assume non-anonymous faultTo

Tony: do we need a 19 for case when faultTo is anonymous?

Anish: no, behavior is unspecified

Paco: but it is the most common error

Anish: but is not specified in the spec

Paco: then we need to go beyond spec text?

TonyR: test says client must not receive response message in this case (faultTo is anon) - this is test 19

Paco: doing optional

Bob: 20, 21 will be like 17, 18 - anonymous marker is optional now, behavior in 20 is like in 17; in 21 server sends back response on back channel

Paco: we can test the case when anonymous is absent - client can assume optional behavior and server faults if it cannot support the EPRs selected

Anish: what is the value of doing that

Glen: right

TonyR: let's leave it at 21

Jonathan: let's put this in some XML format

Bob: I will stick it somewhere in the new tree
... keypoint is to identify the people doing the testing

Anish: Both MEPs and metadata are left to do

Bob: we are then done for the day

<pauld> thanks to Paco for some excellent scribing!

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: at the point of progression to CR, need to put words saying that MEPs at risk in the WSDL 2.0 document are also at risk in this document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Bob to flesh out MEPs into features table [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: companies participating in the testing identify their implementation leaders [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Philippe to confirm availability of MIT location [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/05/04 18:26:52 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/use/using/
Found Scribe: Paco
Inferring ScribeNick: Paco

WARNING: Replacing list of attendees.
Old list: [IBMCambridge] Paul_Downey Marc_Hadley
New list: Prasad_Yendluri

Default Present: Prasad_Yendluri
Present: Prasad_Yendluri

WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list!

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006May/0001.html

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 4 May 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/05/04-ws-addr-minutes.html
People with action items: at bob companies philippe

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]