GEO AIP-2 Interim Design Review Test Facility Working Group Mauro Semerano (ElsagDatamat spa) ESA December 2008

Test Facility Working Group From AIP-2 Kickoff … Primary Participants: BKG, ESA, USGS 11 participants in the session Topics –Conformance test –Persistent testbed –Operations testing Results: Testing resources identified Action I: Register the URLs of the test interfaces Action II: Create a proxy view for service testing endpoint Slide 2

Test Facility Working Group … to AIP-2 Interim Design Review Provided a list of preliminary Test tools (only ESA) Available Test tools registered in GEOSS Created a Proxy page for service testing endpoint Identificated some open points –Authentication Required –Periodic Service Monitoring –Provide Feedback Created two Use Cases: –Registering a Tool –Testing a Service Created the draft Engineering Report for the WG Slide 3

Test Facility Working Group ESA Tools Registered: Service Support Environment (SSE) (test SSE environment to be used for GEOSS services test) Service-oriented architecture; Business process management platform; Use of Open standards (W3C, OASIS, WSI OGC); Orchestration of synchronous and asynchronous Web Services; Integration of the EO data access within the prototyping and delivering of the services; Integration of multiple domains data within the processing and exploitation chains; Support of service evolution and maintenance. Slide 4

Test Facility Working Group ESA Tools Registered: SSE Tools Scenario and service prototyping support tools SSE Toolbox: conversion of any legacy service in a SOA based one (in progress the update with the Buddata ebXML Registry, OMAR EbRR) Workflow Editor : creation of complex workflows and chaining services through an orchestration engine (BPEL based) Test and conformance testing Tools SSE Client (supporting, WMS, WFS, WCS, SOS) Generic SOAP Test Client Test Skeleton (Client + Server) Accessibility Test (WMS,WFS,WCS) GML/SLD Tester OGC Compliance Tests Slide 5

Test Facility Working Group Registration in GEOSS Registration of ESA tools in the GEOSS Registry Service Support Environment (SSE), the Test Facility, registered as component Test Tools (developed in the frame of SSE) registered as service of the SSE The SSE Test Facility has been identified for Resource Category as Software or Application and Other …: Test Facility Tools Provider can register their Test Facilities and Tools or can send their information through or through the Google Pages (Tools will be then registered in GEOSS) Slide 6

Test Facility Working Group Preparation of a Proxy Page Proxy Page at Test Facility WG Google Page: testing-endpoint// The following information shall be provided for each tool: Slide 7 Tool Name Category (e.g.: test facility, conformance test tool, etc.) Description Test Environment necessary, Protocols tested, ICD involved (e.g.: HMA Catalogue Protocol OGC ) Tool Link (direct access to the tool) Usage instruction (link) Available (if it is already operational and persistent or when it is planned) Authentication Required (Yes/No, methods) Registered in GEOSS (Yes/No) Provided By (Organisation) Contacts Whatever suggestions on kind of information to be provided is welcome

Test Facility Working Group Use Case: Registering a tool Slide 8 Steps 1/2: Development and Test of the tool Step 3: The tool is made persistent on an available server Steps 4/5/6: Login in GEOSS Registry and registration of: Test Facility as component specifying at least as Resource Category: software and application Test Tools as services associated to the Test Facility component Steps 7/8/9: Optionally access to the Google pages of the Test Facility WG to fill the Proxy Page for test service endpoint

Test Facility Working Group Use Case: Testing a service Slide 9 Step 1: The Service provider puts its service to be tested on a reachable and available server Steps 2/3/4: The Service provider searches a WMS Test Tool in GEOSS (criteria to be defined for Test Tools), and browses detalils Steps 5/6/7: Optionally, from the GEOSS Registry, the Service provider accesses to the WMS Test Tool instructions for use Steps 8/9: Optionally (if required from the Test Facility and not already done) the Service provider registers itself in the Test Facility Steps 10/11/12: The Service provider, from the GEOSS Registry, accesses to the WMS Test Tool and, if it is required, logs in the Test Facility Steps 13/14: From the WMS Test Tool interface, The Service provider: selects the GetCapabilities test fills the form with URL of its service and necessary parameters submits the request Steps 15/16/17/18: The WMS Test Tool: Sends a GetCapabilities XML request to the services Gets the GetCapabilities XML response Makes necessary analysis and comparisons with the appropriate standards Sends service test results to the service provider Steps 19/20/21: Optionally, in case of problems for immature standards, the service provider sends and to the contact point (found on the GEOSS Registry) of the Test Facility. The Test Facility responsible performs an analysis of problems and if it is the case sends feedbacks for immature standards to the GEOSS Relevant Authorities

Test Facility Working Group Open Point: How to manage authentication Some Test Tools require authentication ESA Test Tools require registration as service provider and authentication It is very probable that they cannot be made "public" without any barrier. Possible solutions: –"public" installation for GEOSS (probably is not feasible) –Individual registration by each GEOSS organization –Unique account for GEOSS user available for each tool Slide 10

Test Facility Working Group Open Point: Periodic Service Monitoring From the CFP: … the facility will also enable periodic checking as to the availability and reliability of registered components and services, encourage cross-community implementations, and shorten prototyping cycles … ESA tools dont include a similar function How we can deal with this request ? –Are there tool able to perform this kind of periodic checking if appropriately configured ? Slide 11

Test Facility Working Group Open Point: Provide Feedback From the CFP: … the Test Facilities should provide feedback to the relevant standards authorities when interoperable use among registered components and services is not achieved. Such outcomes could be the result of immature standards and practices, and may inform the standards authorities of issues needing discussion that could potentially influence their standards process and products … ESA tools dont include a similar function Considering that the tools send results to the service provider, when something goes wrong, due to immature standards: –The Service Provider could send an , explaining the problem to the contact point responsible of the Test Tool –The responsible of the Test Tool can perform an analysis of the problem and in case can send feedback to the relevant standards authorities Slide 12

Test Facility Working Group Engineering Report Contents of the draft Engineering Report provided: List of Tools Tools registered in the GEOSS Registry Use Cases Open Points and Discussions Recommendations (at the moment set of hints for Tool Providers) –Classify tools per category in order to allow an easy way to find the right tools –Provide instructions for use for all tools for non-expert users (links to sites and manuals are ok if the information are easy to find) –Whereas registration is required for tools needing of authentication, provide clear and concise instructions on how to register –Indicate if a tool is available and for which protocols –Indicate if a tool is not available (e.g.: it is still in development phase, the server is in maintenance, etc) and the foreseen date of availability Conclusions (empty in this version) Slide 13

Test Facility Working Group Next Activities GEOSS Registration of non-ESA tools Update of Proxy page with non-ESA tools Discussion of identified open points Evaluation of tools for automated testing –From the CFP: … Web service testing environments such as WebInject or the OGC TEAM Engine will be evaluated to host the test facility … –BKG and ESA used OGC Team in some of their tools –Someone has experience on WebInject ? Interoperability with other Working Groups for Test Tools usage Update of Use Cases Completion of the Engineering Report Slide 14

Test Facility Working Group Communication and Collaboration Test Facility WG list Collaborative Web Sites –Test Facility WG Google Pages group –Development process on ogcnetwork Future WG Teleconferences Plenary Teleconferences Slide 15