> a playback server would be good, but since stage 2 of .net > testing is to to > do .net client, you still need install the framework.
We can also trivially make up any given message and send it to our server (i.e. test.put). > Complex tests are anything that test round tripping, or > particular .net > versions (like 1.1 as well as 1.0) :- > > -are object references being preserved? > -what does that version of .net do for out-of-range enums? > -what does that version of .net generate for: complex data > structures, char, > rpc/enc vs doc/lit, etc. Hm - are you talking about actually testing .NET here, or simply using .NET to test Axis? If the former, I think that belongs in a separate project entirely. If the latter, couldn't you use playback to test this stuff? I'm figuring we can just build up a library of tests along with their canned responses/requests, and mostly not need a .NET installation at all to test most things. When we rely on complex behavior that spans more than a message or two, that's when we really need .NET to do the testing. I'm not really saying we shouldn't test with the actual .NET platform, just that we should, where possible, test the things that .NET uncovers for us in a way that integrates with our automated tests without a .NET server/client. --Glen
