[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [tag] Comments on the TA markup
I agree, though the existing text does materially say the same thing elsewhere, I think Best regards Steve --- Stephen D Green 2010/1/19 Jacques R. Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>: > Quick comment: > > I think we should clearly remind the user that optionality in the mark-up > does NOT mean optionality for actual TA instances... > , e.g. add at the end of Section 2.2 a clear warning: > > "NOTE: valid instances of XML representations defined here may omit optional > parts as indicated with "?" and "*" (examples: testAssertion/target?, > testAssertion/Predicate?), however test assertion instances so represented > MUST comply with cardinality requirements in the TA model specification, > which may actually require that optional elements in the XML representation > be specify in other ways (e.g. see "implicit TA parts") outside this > particular XML fragment (example: an "implicit" TA target)." > > Otherwise the user may be confused and believe that s/he does not need to > specify such parts at all. > > -jacques
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]