Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A.3.8 #25

Open
jensscheerlinck opened this issue Mar 23, 2016 · 5 comments
Open

A.3.8 #25

jensscheerlinck opened this issue Mar 23, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@jensscheerlinck
Copy link
Contributor

This issue has been extracted from the issue list on:https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2685

Comment

In the clause 'Prerequisites' there is a question. One answer to that question could be how about all the tests that has something to do with language,

@jensscheerlinck
Copy link
Contributor Author

Proposed Resolution

Add as prerequisites:
A.3.2 (checks support for language parameter)
A.3.3 (checks whether language parameter is implemented)

@PeterParslow
Copy link
Collaborator

See #31; add the general description at A.1.4
Disagree on the pre-requisites:
See #45 which proposes to remove A.3.2, but more importantly A.3.2 & A.3.3 (requirement 10) apply to the Get Capablilties operation, whereas this applies to the Get Records operation.
I don't think there is a pre-requisite, all services are required to support search by language; it's more that the "pass" response will vary depending on what recods are contained.
Also, the purpose of this test case is written as if it is general, but the requirement only applies to the Discover Metadata / GetRecords operation.

@PeterParslow
Copy link
Collaborator

I don't see my previous comment as 'agree', because A.3.2 & A.3.3 are testing one operation, and this test case exercises another. I don't think the first two are pre-requisites for this. The reasoning is that the primary purpose of language support advertised in the GetCapabilities response is to do with the way you interact with the service, not the language of the records within the service. This isn't explicit in the TG, and perhaps should be.

@jensscheerlinck
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi Peter, I changed the status to agreed to indicate that we agree with your last comment.
Sorry for the confusion.

@jensscheerlinck
Copy link
Contributor Author

Proposed Resolution

Agreed with Peters' comments to:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants