Re: [cgmo-webcgm] test suite questions

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

Hi Lofton,

My point was that we have already enough work as is (and progress is being made at a very slow pace). So lets prioritize...

The way I see it, we don't need 1.0 tests in the 2.0 test suite. From a process stand point (i.e., for getting some sort of Standard recognition), it doesn't help us. We're just making the test suite bigger (and duplicating things). I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but simply saying that it doesn't _have_ to be done.

In my opinion:

- First priority should be new 2.0 features.

- Second, modified 1.0 behaviors in 2.0.

- Third, (if time permitting) moving unchanged 1.0 tests to 2.0.

-- 

Regards,

 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected

by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware

that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or

any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in

error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and

delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. 

Monday, February 6, 2006, 10:38:56 AM, you wrote:

>

I'm having trouble understanding a couple of bits from last weeks telecon.  The minutes say...

•

WebCGM 1.0 test suite question - http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/email/archives/200601/msg00015.html   - Change ProfileEd to 2.0, should 2.0 test suite test tolerance of 1.0 behavior models?  Ben, should be focusing on 2.0 functionality only.

I'm not sure exactly what this means.  Since most of 1.0 is still valid 2.0, I assume that the unaltered parts of 1.0 are still to be tested in the 2.0 test suite.  I.e., Ben is not recommending that the 2.0 test suite should *only* include new 2.0 functionality that is not part of 1.0.  Is that correct?

Some parts of 1.0 have been "deprecated"  in 2.0.  We have a definition [1] for what this means in general.  There is a little slop in the definition, because it talks about "2.0 viewers that support 1.0", without directly addressing the extent to which 2.0 viewers must support 1.0. For the 3 old object behaviors, there is a definite conformance requirement for 2.0 viewers.  Is it suggested that we not have tests for these conformance requirements?

[1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/WebCGM20-Conf.html#deprecated

One other small comment on the minutes...

• Has Ulrich updated WebCGM Metafile Test?  WebCGM Event test?  Lofton should have the WebCGM Metafile Test, Ulrich sent it early January.

I think Ulrich and I may have had a communication outage.  Indeed in early January he wrote that he would be sending the revised test within hours, but I never got it.  (So ... please send it again Ulrich, or alternately put it up on the FTP site directly.  Thanks.)

Regards,

-Lofton.