Preparing to Use the Composite Application Validation System 2-5
Figure 2–5 illustrates testing an asynchronous notify MEP using CAVS test and
simulator definitions.
Figure 2–5 Testing an Asynchronous Notify MEP Using a CAVS Test Definition and
Simulator Definition
Asynchronous Notify MEP Testing Flow Using a Simulator Definition The provider participating application is replaced by the CAVS simulator definition.
The requester ABCS is programmed to route to this simulator instead of the provider participating application. The simulator definition contains a predefined expected
request message.
The simulator definition performs validations on message input from the provider ABCS.
Figure 2–6 illustrates testing an asynchronous notify MEP using a CAVS simulator
definition.
Figure 2–6 Testing an Asynchronous Notify MEP Using a CAVS Simulator Definition
2.3.3 Describing Flows for Testing the Asynchronous Two-Way Message Exchange Pattern
The following diagrams describe CAVS process flows for testing a provider ABCS using an asynchronous two-way MEP.
These sample flows can be used as the basis for testing other artifacts as well, such as the requester ABCS, EBF, or the provider service itself.
Asynchronous Two-Way MEP Testing Flow Using a Test Definition The requester participating application is replaced by the CAVS test definition. The
test definition points to the URL of the requester ABCS. It uses a composed request
2-6 Infrastructure Components and Utilities Users Guide
message to invoke the ABCS and expects an eventual message in response. The test definition includes a timeout value. If no response message is received within this
timeout value, the test definition will experience a timeout failure.
Figure 2–7 illustrates testing an asynchronous two-way MEP using a CAVS test
definition.
Figure 2–7 Testing an Asynchronous Two-Way MEP Using a CAVS Test Definition
Asynchronous Two-Way MEP Testing Flow Using a Test Definition and Simulator Definition
The requester participating application is replaced by the CAVS test definition. The test definition points to the URL of the requester ABCS. It uses a composed request
message to invoke the ABCS and expects an eventual message in response. The test definition includes a timeout value. If no response message is received within this
timeout value, the test definition will experience a timeout failure.
The provider participating application is replaced by the CAVS simulator definition. The provider ABCS is programmed to route to this simulator instead of the provider
participating application. The simulator definition contains a predefined request and response message pair.
The simulator definition performs validations on message input from the provider ABCS and sends the message back to the provider ABCS. The provider ABCS sends
the message back to the test definition, which validates this actual response against its predefined expected response.
Figure 2–8 illustrates testing an asynchronous two-way MEP using CAVS test and
simulator definitions.
Preparing to Use the Composite Application Validation System 2-7
Figure 2–8 Testing an Asynchronous Two-Way MEP Using a CAVS Test Definition and
Simulator Definition
Asynchronous Two-Way MEP Testing Flow Using a Simulator Definition The provider ABCS is replaced by the CAVS simulator definition. The requester ABCS
is programmed to route to this simulator instead of having the flow reach the provider ABCS.
The simulator definition contains a predefined request and response message pair, as well as a user-defined delay value. The simulator definition will delay its response by
this amount of time to simulate the asynchronous two-way nature of the provider participating application.
The simulator definition performs validations on message input from the requester ABCS and sends the message back to the requester ABCS.
Figure 2–9 illustrates testing an asynchronous two-way MEP using a CAVS simulator
definition.
Figure 2–9 Testing an Asynchronous Two-Way MEP Using a CAVS Simulator Definition
2-8 Infrastructure Components and Utilities Users Guide
2.4 Does the Scenario Need to be Unit or Flow Tested?
