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

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

Wow. Quite a test.... or more correctly a test sequence?

On 14/08/07, stephen.green@systml.co.uk <stephen.green@systml.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi. Thanks Jacques and David and for comments.
>
> Yes, the testing of this item for the SBS profile for UBL
> which relates to the Sender (there is another rule which
> relates to the Receiver) could be like the following:
>


> Essentially it is a business rule, albeit of an unusually
> technical nature but there are still tests which can be
> applied. Some such tests might be best applied by technical
> auditors though, even by legal experts in some cases.
>
> Not sure how these test requirements would be expressed as
> test assertions though since maybe the target audience of the
> test assertion would be a technical auditor or legal expert,
> even a legal court (if say there was a large sum unpaid
> because the receiver had ignored some payment terms or tax
> amounts which were external to the subset) eventually.

Layering needed?
A single test (pass or fail).
A test group (again pass or fail with test results)
If test group passes, output the message in an appropriate format?
Appropriate to the audience that is.
Groups layered into supergroups as needed,
culminating in a complete application.
The end resut is the summation (done automatically, not collated by the
application, which cheats) of the test groups. Again either pass or fail.



Nasty:
  Writing tests with built in debug.
  I.e. run it with the debug flag set and all the techie garbage flows.
  Switch it off and the legal eagle sees pass, or fail, test number 1,290.

If you've multiple audiences, the test application layer needs parameters.


regards




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