Re: [tag] Thread: TA modeling - RE: [tag] TA Model still weak on tests of structure?

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

On 27/09/2007, stephen.green@systml.co.uk <stephen.green@systml.co.uk> wrote:

> >> Outcome:
> >> The Test Expression MUST be true
> >
> > Badly designed? What expression?
>
> 'Test Expression'
>
> in other words
>
> "For a candidate envelope containing a soap:Body element the
> soap:Envelope does not have direct children after the soap:Body element"

Satisfiable in multiple xpath expressions, but better than 'x must be true' :-


>
> > What variables.
>
> The example might seem incomplete (especially if you are looking for an actual
> test) but this is a real world example form an set of TAs for an actual
> profile.

Which QA should clearly reject Steve if that's an example :-)


>
>
> > A test must test something, some test outcome must be measured
> > in some way.
>
> Again, I'm not trying to establish best practise for actually writing
> the test assertion content, just a sensible, simplest best-fit structure
> for a general TA which meets, as much as possible for such a structure,
> the breadth of prior art examples on which we are focusing.
>
> I hope the above clarifies my proposal. Not so hopeful it will persuade :-)


My only real concern is that any examples that go towards a standard
are clear, explicit and resolvable?

regards



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