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

[stephen.green@systml.co.uk]

Dave, Hi,

Oh dear, now I realize I misunderstood you and span
off into reams of unnecessary explanation. Sorry.
Still maybe it won't be a bad thing to have over-explained
myself. :-) I guess I need to choose a better example.

-- 
Stephen Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice



Quoting 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
>