Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Draft Interoperability and Conformance TCformation proposal (0.2)

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 07/27/2008 01:41:20 AM:

> 2008/7/26  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> 
> 
> > Probably worth being explicit about what we mean by "doing tests". One
> > way in which it could be done would comprise at least the following 
steps:
> 
> We again? Oasis? IBM? Not sure whose definition of testing you're using
> 
> I really do wonder where these definitions come from. Provision?
> 
> The action of providing; seeing to things beforehand;
> preparing, or arranging in advance; the fact or condition of being 
prepared
> or made ready beforehand.
> 
> What the heck has that to do with testing.
> 

You need a better dictionary.  Even MW Online says that "provision" also 
means a proviso or stipulation:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Provision

More to the point, ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 "Rules for the structure and 
drafting of International Standards" gives the following definitions:

"normative elements:  elements that describe the scope of the document, 
and which set out provisions ( 3.12)"

And then in normative Annex H it defines what provisions are: 
requirements, recommendations, permissions, possibilities and 
capabilities, as defined by the standard.

The same sense of "provision" is used also by OASIS in their "Conformance 
Requirements for Specifications":

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/305/conformance_requirements-v1.pdf

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out "what the heck has 
that to do with testing".

> 
> <snip/>
> 
> 
> > 4) The creation of ODF instance documents which correspond to each of 
the
> > test assertions, along with an image or descriptive text that would 
tell
> > how that document should render in a conformant ODF applications. So, 
we
> > would have an ODF test document which has the legal value of 3, and
> > another ODF document with the illegal value of 6.  Each document would
> > have a file name corresponding to its test assertion ID.
> 
> Which is likely to cover around 55% of the standard.
> The rest?
> 

That should cover nearly 100% of the provisions of the standard.  The 
informative parts of the standard do not require testing.

> >
> > 5) The creation of a document which enumerates all of the test 
assertions,
> > categorized functionally, along with a statement of what preconditions 
are
> > necessary to perform each test, what the expected results are, which 
test
> > files are needed for each test, and how the results are to be 
reported.
> 
> Is this the program you said we shouldn't write? The 'glue'?
> 

I said explicitly "document".  Where do you get "program" from that?

The "glue" would be code that is tied to a specific ODF implementation, 
such as something that would add a "conformance test" menu item to 
OpenOffice and then perform an automated conformance test, or would 
semi-automate a test, by automatically loading a document, and giving a UI 
for the tester to enter their results.  This was #6.  Glue == Test 
Harness.


> 
> I think your understanding of testing is quite deeply flawed Rob.
>

That statement brings far more discredit to you than to me, Dave. 

One would hope, that after repeated demonstrations of the fact, that it 
might enter your mind occasionally when bluntly yet erroneously correcting 
others, that there is the possibility, even likelihood, that the error is 
yours. 

But still you remain bold, even reckless, in your condemning the 
misperceived errors of others. 

Save your arrows for when you can more clearly see the target.  Otherwise 
the archer appears to be short of sight, and judgement.


-Rob