[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tag-discuss] Re: Test case metadata is not in scope (was: Re: Reasons to wait...)
David: That sounds good. Are we talking of gathering all this in a
kind of "memorandum of understanding" document, authored by people on
this list, that provides some background to potential TC members, and that may
be referred to by the charter? (hope this can stay informal enough to avoid involving
legal depts....) A few comments in line <JD> Cheers, Jacques -----Original Message----- In an attempt to avoid obfuscating, I will start over in presenting the
environment surrounding the proposal to have a TC set a standard for
Test Assertions (TAs). I. Specs are written by documentation-type people. <JD> as you say later, these are more
"roles" that people play. Suggest to replace " documentation-type
people" with "domain experts".</JD> They write prose, and much of it (from OASIS, W3C, et al., at least) is loaded with testable sentences. Some specs, such as XPath, also have numbered and
individually ID'd "productions" in a formal grammar. Spec writers would be
the logical group to write TAs, which are a more formal version of the testable sentences they currently write. They await some standards for TAs. <JD> testable sentences -?->
testable requirements </JD> II. Test cases are written by software-quality-assurance-type people. <JD> Suggest to replace "software-quality-assurance-type
people" with "quality-assurance specialists" or the like (avoid "type")</JD> Some of them also use test case metadata, either in portable standalone
files (e.g., XQuery Test Suite) or managed by a tool such Rational
TestManager. These people are the ones who write test case metadata, and they are
doing so without standards. <JD> do we mean: "These people
are the ones who need test case metadata, and in the absence of standards they
usually write their own." </JD> But they would benefit if there were standards for test case metadata, at least setting a floor. A good summary of the state of the art for test case metadata as used
in portable test suites is at http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-test-metadata-20050914/ Note in particular one item of data for each test case is the SpecRef;
see section 2.6 for details. The SpecRef would point to the TAs used in the
test case, if they existed. The SpecRef is distinct from the Purpose (section 2.3) and Description (section 2.4) fields of the metadata. Depending on the form that the standardized TAs take, they may become associated with Preconditions (2.7), Inputs (2.8), and/or
ExpectedResults (2.9). III. Code is written by software developers. They will use specs, test cases, TAs, and whatever else they can get as they attempt to write bug-free code that behaves as the specs dictate. There are several commercial software tool suppliers and projects like Eclipse that
attempt to make these people as productive as possible by providing Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) and the like. If there were a standard
for TAs that defined them in a way that enabled a set of TAs to be poured
into an IDE, and if that helped the developers to be more productive, great appreciation would be heaped upon those who set the TA standard. In summary, TAs flow from Group I to Groups II and III. Group II would
use TAs in conjunction with test case metadata. An individual can be a
member of more than one group; the groups define "roles" rather
than, say, personality traits. .................David Marston --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tag-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: tag-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]