RE: [tag-discuss] RE: TA definition (formerly: surviving the winter break)

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

I see now what you mean by TA "building on each other".  In case the
sequence M0-M1 is a response pattern that is normatively described in
the specification, we can indeed assume that a TA(t1) already exists
just for verifying that, and that it MUST first be verified before we
even think of using this way to generate M1 for verifying the next
TA(t2). 

When the sending of M1 is controlled via some non-specified interaction
such as an API call(there is no particular condition under which the
spec requires the IUT to send M1) then it would appear it is not the
business of a TA to worry about this - it is the job of a test case to
tell how the test app should cause this to happen. 

- Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: david_marston@us.ibm.com [mailto:david_marston@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:43 AM
To: tag-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [tag-discuss] RE: TA definition (formerly: surviving the
winter break)

JD>...So here, should the TA also take care of telling how to cause the
IUT to send M1 out ?

I think that (most likely) there would be a separate TA that asserts
that 
some behavior causes messages of type M1 to be sent out. That's how the 
assertions build on each other.
.................David Marston

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tag-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tag-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org