1 / 30

Joint Exchange / Interop Work Group Test Workgroup

Joint Exchange / Interop Work Group Test Workgroup. Eric Heflin/Judith Huntman. Aug 22, 2012. Roll. Agenda. Roll Call – Cayla Announcements – Eric Direct harmonization – Judith Test execution status – Judith soapUI demo – Judith Open Discussion – All Wrap Up/Schedule Review - Eric.

austin-rosales
Download Presentation

Joint Exchange / Interop Work Group Test Workgroup

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Joint Exchange / Interop Work Group Test Workgroup Eric Heflin/Judith Huntman Aug 22, 2012

  2. Roll

  3. Agenda • Roll Call – Cayla • Announcements – Eric • Direct harmonization – Judith • Test execution status – Judith • soapUIdemo – Judith • Open Discussion – All • Wrap Up/Schedule Review - Eric

  4. Announcements • Harmonized PD/QD/RD/MP/AF (aka Patient Record Lookup) Tests Were Ratified Last Week • Future changes are possible, but will be incorporated into the next phase of test cases design and implementation (post Oct 2012) • http://exchange-iwg.wikispaces.com/Test+Artifacts+Harmonization • Pilot is beginning • RFP • Has 5 respondents • Evaluations are still under way

  5. Harmonization Phases Unified Test Process – Has Been Proposed

  6. Direct Harmonization

  7. Analysis of Test Artifacts • Breaking down EHR-HIE Test Spec into modular components • Mapping to ONC test cases

  8. Test Approach:Direct only v. Internal actors Internal Actor Messaging Direct Messaging

  9. Internal Actor Testing FR-3 HISP to SMTP Receiver FR-2 SMTP Sender to HISP FR-7 SMTP to SMTP FR-5 HISP Sender to HISP Receiver Direct Messaging

  10. Deployment Model E.1

  11. E.1 FR-4 HISP to XD Receiver FR-5 HISP Sender to HISP Receiver FR-6 XD to XD FR-9 SMTP to XD FR-7 SMTP to SMTP

  12. Deployment Model E.2

  13. E.2 FR-8 XD to SMTP FR-1 XD Sender to HISP FR-5 HISP Sender to HISP Receiver FR-6 XD to XD FR-7 SMTP to SMTP

  14. Other Deployment Models: Unclear Testing Path

  15. Deployment Model B FR-7 SMTP to SMTP FR-5 HISP Sender to HISP Receiver

  16. Deployment Model C FR-5 HISP Sender to HISP Receiver FR-7 SMTP to SMTP

  17. Sample Analysis: Edge Protocol EHR-HIE Test Spec FR-2

  18. FR-2: SMTP Sender to HISP * Internal actors specified * Send XDR not proscribed in Direct specs

  19. FR-2: Applying a Modular Approach Direct Messaging XD Conversion Cert Discovery Deplmnt B Reqts Deplmnt X Reqts Deplmnt A Reqts B1 X1 FR2 B2 A2 X2 DM1 DM2 CD1 XD1 XD2 CD2 DM3 CD3 XD3 B3 A3 X3 Event-Based Interop Testing EHR-HIE ApplicantProduction Participant FR2 DM1 CD1 FR-2 SMTP to HISP DM2 CD3 A2 DM3 CD2 A3

  20. Sample Analysis: NormativeEHR-HIE Test Spec FR-5

  21. FR-5: HISP Sender to HISP Receiver via S/MIME

  22. FR-5: Applying a Modular Approach Direct Messaging Cert Discovery XD Conversion Deplmnt B Reqts Deplmnt A Reqts Deplmnt X Reqts B1 FR1 X1 B2 X2 A2 DM1 DM2 CD1 XD1 XD2 CD2 DM3 XD3 CD3 B3 X3 A3 Event-Based Interop Testing EHR-HIE ApplicantProduction Participant FR1 DM1 CD1 DM2 CD3 A2 FR-5 Sending HISP to Receiving HISP CD2 A3 DM3

  23. ‘round-the-room • Should we levy normative conditional requirements for specified deployment models / edge protocols? • If so, how far do we go in accommodating other (unknown) deployment models?

  24. Where does conversion occur? This end-to-end testing shows one possible model. Here, XD conversion is tested at the Sender Test Module. But it could be done at other hops too.

  25. Test Execution Status

  26. Automating Test Case Execution: soapUI scripts complete NEW NEW

  27. soapUI Demo

  28. ‘round-the-room • Does the (soapUI-based) approach seem appropriate?

  29. Open Discussion

  30. Schedule Review • RFP released — July 2nd  • Questions received by 6 organizations • Answers distributed — July 13th • Bids due — July 20th • Evaluating • Expected award — TBD • Contract start — TBD We are here (running late)

More Related