Re: Thread: TA Outcome (formerly: RE: [tag] some thoughts and comments from reading a month worth ofmessages)

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

On 25/09/2007, Durand, Jacques R. <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote:


> But I feel we also need an unconclusive outcome at TA level:
>
> "non-applicable": when the conditions and/or behavior of the IUT (or of the
> system IUT+TestEnvironment?) leading to the initiation of the actual test
> are NOT met, then this TA does not apply to this IUT. No conclusion can be
> made w/r to the addressed specification requirement. Note that this
> "non-application"  is different from a failure of the test environment
> itself: here it only means the IUT is not qualified, while a test env
> failure means that some unexpected contingencies made the testing impossible
> - an unexpected test case problem, not a definition of the TA application
> scope.

I find this a twist on my understanding. Simplified, a test may not be
have been run/executed/applied to the UUT.
That is not inconclusive, it's fact.
The test may be perfectly applicabe. For some reason it was not run.
Then you can go on to reach conclusions.
If a test is not applicable to this UUT then who cares? No need to mention it?

But yes, this third option is valid. pass | fail | not applied to the UUT

regards





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