Re: [tag] Groups - Intro Material for TA Guide (Rationale.html) uploaded

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

On 20 Sep 2007 00:31:23 -0000, jdurand@us.fujitsu.com
<jdurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> F2F presentation: Intro Material for TA Guide (Patrick Curran)
>
>  -- Mr Jacques Durand
>
> The document named Intro Material for TA Guide (Rationale.html) has been
> submitted by Mr Jacques Durand to the OASIS Test Assertions Guidelines
> (TAG) TC document repository.

Comments.
Each test assertion is an independent, complete, testable statement of
requirements in the specification.

The 'complete' bothers me. Either define it or remove it. With the other words
it may be unnecessary. It stands pretty well without it.

Re benefits.

I'm uncomfortable with the relationship between coverage and mapping.
Classic of a high level requirement which needs 23 tests. Shown in the coverage
but has a one to many mapping, requirement to tests. Each test is independent,
but the coverage of the requirement isn't complete until all 23 have been run?
Does this need stating? Possibly not, but it is implicit.


Coverage analysis

Define coverage goals for each section.
Each section of what? The test suite? or the specification. Unclear as
it stands.

For each partition,
is this a section?

What percentage of assertions are covered by at least one test?
Should this be requirements? In the requirements document?

Need a way of making it clear which document is being spoken of.

I can see where it's going, I've previously called this the test plan.
I think it needs re-work to aid clarity?

Generally a very useful document. IMHO due a place fairly high
in the output of this SC.

regards




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