RE: [tag] Groups - TA Anatomy V0.5 (AnatomyTA-v05.doc) uploaded

[stephen.green@systml.co.uk]

Quoting "Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>:

> 2. At the root of all this, a fundamental question on pass/fail
> semantics. Do we want:
> (a) pass/fail that has a test semantics only, i.e. nothing more than
> true/false if the test is presented as a logical condition. Thus, a
> "pass"  in a "negative TA" could be interpreted later as the IUT being
> NOT consistent with spec requirement.
> (b) pass/fail that has a conformance semantics (i.e. an outcome = "fail"
> means the IUT is inconsistent with the addressed spec requirement, and
> "pass" means consistency within scope of this test.)
> I am leaning in favor of (b) as I think it is more intuitive. Certainly
> many people - including me - have written their TAs that way without
> trouble. But (b) must make room for a third outcome:
> pass/fail/inconclusive.

I too favor (b). Reason: there is a possibility that the expertise
of those writing TAs will better cover the subject matter than the
methodologies and logicalities of testing (since we are asking that
spec writers write TAs in the first instance). Plus, asking that a
set of TAs accompany a spec means that subject matter experts for
the subject of the spec who have less expertise in testing will
be reading and possibly reviewing the TAs along with the review of
the spec and making the TAs match the spec logically makes sense for
these. After all test experts are already having to turn spec logic
into test logic on a daily basis so to have to do that for the TAs
seems an acceptable pay-off for having spec experts write TAs.

There's bound to be a downside though. Do we have to make it a case
of EITHER (a) or (b)? Can both be catered for? I'd not be in favor of
trying to do so personally though but if testers wish to use the TA
guidelines they might want option (a) left open.

Best regards

-- 
Stephen Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice