Re: Thoughts on MTOM testing

Hi,

I am in charge of the interop tests for Canon CRF implementation, and
agree with the tests defined below. I am in holidays from this afternoon
to 23rd of August, but will be ok to start running some tests when I 
come back.

-- 
Jeanne Guillou
CANON Research Centre France S.A.
Rue de la Touche-Lambert
35517 CESSON SEVIGNE CEDEX
Tel. + 33(0)2.99.87.68.96
Fax. + 33(0)2.99.84.11.30

Martin Gudgin wrote:
> I promised to post some thoughts on what kind of tests we could run
> during the CR period for MTOM/XOP. Here they are;
> 
> 1.	In terms of simplicity, I think an echo test would be easiest,
> but with a little twist. If the media type of the request message is
> application/soap+xml then the response should be MTOM. And vice-versa.
> This will test both receiving and sending MTOM messages.
> 
> 2.	We could define an element that contains the optimized data, so
> that it's easy to write code to find that element, rather than having to
> look for a whole bunch of them. This will just make implementing the
> echo test easier.
> 
> 3.	We should test messages with a single binary part.
> 
> 4.	We should test messages with multiple binary parts.
> 
> 5.	We could test xmlmime:content-type by specifying it on a request
> message of application/soap+xml and checking that the Content-Type
> header of the corresponding MIME part is set correctly in the response
> message.
> 
> 6.	For failure cases, we could test request messages that have
> binary parts missing ( dangling include ) and messages that use
> Content-Location ( not allowed, MUST use Content-ID ).
> 
> Proposed xml for single binary part messages:
> 
> <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap='http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope' 
>                xmlns:xm='http://www.w3.org/2004/06/xmlmime' >
>  <soap:Body>
>   <p:EchoTest xmlns:p='http://example.org/test' >
>    <p:Data xm:content-type='image/jpeg'
> 
>>ufzZppdWP+APreQS5N3QMbmer9Qb5jJvBJOhIUqXQNBqketslkPtf3VTkouE5IP3Iwc0s4y
> 
> 3vNPJaaEEtR6Wdw==</p:Data>
>   </p:EchoTest>
>  </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> 
> And for multiple binary part messages:
> 
> <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap='http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope' 
>                xmlns:xm='http://www.w3.org/2004/06/xmlmime' >
>  <soap:Body>
>   <p:EchoTest xmlns:p='http://example.org/test' >
>    <p:Data xm:content-type='image/jpeg'
> 
>>ufzZppdWP+APreQS5N3QMbmer9Qb5jJvBJOhIUqXQNBqketslkPtf3VTkouE5IP3Iwc0s4y
> 
> 3vNPJaaEEtR6Wdw==</p:Data>
>    <p:Data xm:content-type='application/octet-stream'
> 
>>rJF4LVZatSi6Xep5LRPvpC8UaIDbCO4JDm6j9qLDN7noGVA/Gdl+MzpQT4a0CgccwrTyDhL
> 
> BOaOibx/ot76G9g==</p:Data>
>    <p:Data xm:content-type='audio/wav'
> 
>>DyJf8o/ih/WcQn5aV7zcrFJAy7TuDGMGjYgQ82rrwvegAhcAnTayWMFs9rTI1TeCIH4L4Z3
> 
> lEQO/WGUG0pOKsA==</p:Data>
>   </p:EchoTest>
>  </soap:Body>
> </soap:Envelope>
> 
> Does this make sense? What other tests should we do?
> 
> Gudge
> 
>