On 04/01/13 01:28, [email protected] wrote: > First draft of the Resource Metadata Test Plan (including xsl file) > - Machine capabilities: DefaultInitialState and InitialStates >
TL;DR: I think I'll go ahead and push this and you can tweak/fix the following points as you see fit Hi Ronelle: this is looking very good indeed. Couple minor comments/points of clarification: * Part1 => 1.2 => Success Criteria : "For each collection appearing in the CEP there should be a ResourceMetadata entry with the corresponding typeURI in the ResourceMetadata collection " =====I'm not sure if this is true; it is my understanding that there will be entries in the Resource Metadata Collection for those Resources that the Provider wishes to advertise some feature/capability/action. Did you find something in the spec to the contrary which I (very well) may have missed? * Part 2 "This test only applies if CEP.machines is present" ======I think this should be "only applies if CEP.ResourceMetadata collection contains an entry corresponding to the Machine resource" (follows from my first point above) * Parts 3/4 - need a "only applies if the ResourceMetadata resource corresponding to the Machine resource contains a _name_ capability" (i.e. _name_ is [DefaultInitialState | InitialStates] ) * This one is a bit nick-pickingy - just a thought: Part2 => 2.1 => Success Criteria: "Capabilities, attributes and actions available on the provider that are associated with the Machine collection must be listed" =====I think we might tweak the wording a bit here; something like "at least one of capabilities/attributes/actions must be listed within the Machine Resource Metadata resource". For two reasons: first to clarify that a RM resource doesn't have to have all three (I know this isn't what you meant, but it might be read that way), and explicate that if there is a RM resource for a collection FOO, it must advertise at least *something* there (i.e. feature and capabilities and actions are ALL optional; but at least one of them should be listed otherwise there's a problem with that RM resource). Secondly, since this is 'success criteria' it must be verifiable; "available on the provider" - how are we going to verify that? I mean, you get a list of RM capabilities, how do you know it includes all those that are 'available'. marios
