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

[Carmelo Montanez <carmelo@nist.gov>]

A few comments embedded below.

At 03:21 AM 11/21/2006, Dave Pawson wrote:

>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.


CM

Absolutely agree.  There will be some manual coding at some point 
(regrettably).
However well stated TA's should minimize that.




>><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.
>

Talking about TA's writers, will the editor of a spec well also be 
responsible for inserting
(and/or) editing the TA's?


>regards
>
>
>--
>Dave Pawson
>XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
>http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tag-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: tag-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>