RE: [office-formula] 6.12.12 INFO (Test case results missing)

[Eric Patterson <ericpa@exchange.microsoft.com>]

Hi Rob,

I am aware of the current plan of record and I am reviewing the text definition of the functions.  As part of my review and determination about complete, accurate and unambiguous, I'm looking at the test cases.  For some functions, the test cases are at odds with the text, so I am posting questions to resolve those issues.  For other functions, the current state of the test cases may not affect the review of the text, but could be improved.  Rather than discard that feedback, I'm also posting it here.  I'll make it more clear in my posts what type of action I'm expecting from the TC.

Thanks,
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:41 AM
To: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office-formula] 6.12.12 INFO (Test case results missing)

Hi Eric,

Just so we're synched on the plan of record for OpenFormula.  The plan is
to deliver this standard without embedded test cases.  We may debate this
some more, and maybe even reverse direction on this, but the current plan
is that the embedded test cases will be removed and likely re-emerge in
some other form.

So when reviewing the functions, the thing to look for is whether the text
definition of the function is complete, accurate and unambiguous.  Pretend
the test cases don't even exist.  The remaining text must stand on its own
as the sole normative description of the function.

If something in the text is unclear, but the example clarifies it, then
this is a defect in the text.  The text must stand alone.  Similarly, if
the text is clear and correct and the test case contradicts it, then this
is not a formal problem, since the test cases are being removed.

So the most important thing is to ensure that the text is correct.

-Rob