Re: [hybi] websocket test suite

Justin Lee <jlee@antwerkz.com> Fri, 29 July 2011 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jlee@antwerkz.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7053B21F8B33 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wsNY2EczsF3j for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67DAC21F8B32 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so2016559fxe.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.9.217 with SMTP id m25mr360278fam.122.1311902796866; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.24.156 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NFBNU7fiWWBoc2NNG0irjkOp7JAwDuNcAj-M2nFrGpVaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH_y2NFBNU7fiWWBoc2NNG0irjkOp7JAwDuNcAj-M2nFrGpVaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:26:36 -0600
Message-ID: <CABDh0KkxLLU1onDbiya_n2BAmyUBPkM1LS1PDn2_CHgnOWtpJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Lee <jlee@antwerkz.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0ce0db5e2fe5fa04a92b2ce6"
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] websocket test suite
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 01:26:39 -0000

I'm actually building up a set of unit tests in grizzly that i'm going to
use for testing 1.9 clients against 2.0 servers, and vice versa.  I was
hoping to test grizzly client code against jetty servers as well
libwebsocket servers, too.  However, having a standard set of tests to
validate against would increase my confidence that I'm implementing
everything correctly on my end.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> I'd like to restart the conversation around developing a standard set
> of tests for websocket implementations.  The draft I had previously
> published has expired, and reading it again now, I'm not sure it is a
> good starting point as the approach adopted was a bit laissez faire
> and was just a few test that was felt to check the bulk of the
> specified behaviour.   I now think that what is needed is a more
> rigorous approach with specific tests designed to verify each section
> of the specification.  ie there should be traceability from a clause
> in the spec to the test(s) that verify it.
>
> So firstly, does anybody have suggestions of good tests suites
> specified for other IETF efforts that we could use as a model to base
> our tests on?
>
> Anybody else interested in collaborating on this?
>
> cheers
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>



-- 
You can find me on the net at:
http://antwerkz.com
http://antwerkz.com/+
http://antwerkz.com/linkedin
http://antwerkz.com/twitter