Re: [tag-discuss] TA definition

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

On 01/02/07, Durand, Jacques R. <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> If we assume (even implicitly) some kind of test harness as context to the
> existence of a TA, as several of us believe based on recent mails, I believe
> we also assume an entity called "the implementation [under test]".

The royal we is back :-)

 I looked
> into W3C QA framework doc and did not find much said about what is
> pervasively referred to as "a conforming implementation".
>
> Does a TA have to say more about "a conforming implementation" of the target
> spec (can we asume all TAS are implicitly about the same "conforming
> implementation")?

No, otherwise there is no need for testing. The Item | Unit under test is
of unknown conformity until tested.



>
> Because a specification may have modules and profiles (quoting W3C QA fmk),
> in some cases I believe it will be necessary to be more specific about which
> implementation profile or of which module implementation we are talking
> about.
Test scenario?
Not module implementation though?
Implementations?



 For example, if a messaging specification assumes that
> implementations may take either a "sender" role or a "receiver"  role (not
> necessarily both), a TA would not be meaningful if it does not refer to
> which role is under test (often this role can be inferred from the TA
> wording - e.g. "if an implementation sends a message..." --> "sender" role ,
> but that kind of hint may not be reliable).

I'd view that as a different I | U UT, i.e. the two beasts are
different, sender and
receiver.



>
> Keeping this discussion focused on finalizing the charter, I would propose
> to extend our TA def as follows (see two first sentences added to previous
> extension):
>
> "A TA always assumes an implementation under test. When necessary, the TA
> may characterize the implementation that is under test, e.g. by identifying
> the specification profile or module covered by this implementation. A TA may
> refer to an abstract test harness architecture that characterizes test
> components in terms of their interaction with the implementation under test.
> A TA may specify which interactions or operations between implementation and
> test harness are expected to be observed or exercised."

I object to the use of 'implementation'. I see the point of it, but
dislike the term.
It implies I can implement the item in n different ways. Fine, but
nothing to do
with testing. IUT configuration perhaps? Or simply its IUT A or IUT B.


>
>
> If nobody complains, I'll use this wording in the coming charter draft....

Take mine as a complaint.

Modified proposal.


 "A TA always assumes an item under test(IUT). When necessary, the TA
 may identify  the item explicitly in some appropriate manner. A TA may
 refer to an abstract test harness architecture that characterizes test
 components in terms of their interaction with the IUT.


The last sentence is redundant. That is the whole purpose of testing.

regards



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