Re: [tag-discuss] Re: a few questions to kick-off the discussion

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

> I think that a TC should only be formed if it intends to produce a
> design
> for machine-processable test assertions, which I presume means an XML
> vocabulary.

dp: Not all wanted testing is automated. Manual intervention is often necessary
in order to fully test an object, be this physical or a software
application. The only
real caveat should perhaps address whether objective assessment is
the boundary, i.e. subjective assessment is in/out of scope.




> <JD> that seems to be a cautious statement. An interesting notion is
> that indeed, a test assertion cannot make entirely abstraction of the
> way things will ultimately be tested (at least in my experience), even
> if it is far from being as procedural as a test case. It assumes somehow
> a particular test environment - or at least some architecture traits.
> Note that I am not happy to say this, as if true that would ask more
> from TA writers than what they may be willing to think about.
> Should it be part of the TA guide to require a [succinct] description of
> the test set-up? More to think about.
> </JD>

dp. IMHO absolutely essential. pre test setup, you'll need this that
and the other
in order to test this X. Without the right tools few of us can do the job well.
Similarly 'knockdown' as I knew it. I.e. how to restore the Unit Under Test
to a neutral state post test. It may be very simple, but should be considered.


regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk