RE: [tag] Test Assertion Modeling - comments, etc

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

Good point - and something more the TA guide should talk about...
An advantage of having a TA just either pass or fail, and not worry
about matching its "warnings" to spec recommendation, is that the
(future) test results can be decoupled from their interpretation:

It could be that a conformance level A is OK with TA xyz failing, while
conformance level B is not OK with that. In that case its up to the
Conformance profile to interpret a TA failure either as "warning" or as
"fatal failure".

-Jacques
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:05 AM
To: TAG
Subject: Re: [tag] Test Assertion Modeling - comments, etc

On 13/08/07, Durand, Jacques R. <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote:


> Then there are issues like - how to model 'SHOULD', can there be 
> artifacts of artifacts, properties of properties, and can this 
> complexity even be modelled as a set of predicatives, etc?
>
> <jacques> one way to handle SHOULD or RECOMMENDED reqs, is to treat 
> them like MUST in the TA, but in case of failure, produce a "warning"

> instead of a "fail"...


The more general model is for each test (however derived) to have an
outcome:
That outcome is pass or fail. The action on fail can then be a reported
fail ( of the entire test suite) or a warning message only. That should
be a part of the test definition.

regards



--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk