Re: [tag] Groups - TA Anatomy V0.5 (AnatomyTA-v05.doc) uploaded

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

On 03/10/2007, Lynne Rosenthal <lsr@nist.gov> wrote:
> I agree with Dave (see a below)
>
> In summary:
> a) Regardless of whether it is a positive or negative test - a pass is a
> pass; a fail is a fail.
> (note: we need to be clear regarding the results of the negative test in
> that the behavior being tested causes an error or failure, but that is
> what is expected to happen, thus, the test passes)

Rather than talk about negative or positive, don't mention it?
A test occurs. The output meets the expected outcome  = a pass.
No mention of negative, positive or anything else?

The current documentation seems to be heavy on superfluous
words which can detract from comprehension.


>
> b) If an IUT passes all the tests - then the best we can say is that
> there were no failures.  Since testing was probably falsification
> testing, you can't prove the IUT correct.

I think this contains assumptions? It may, or it may be the expected
sum of all outcomes.
If a UUT meets all the tests how else can you get a pass without
making negative and confusing assumptions?




 However, failing a test proves
> that it isn't correct. BUT, if the conformance clause or the testing
> organization allows for partial conformance, then the door is wide open
> with respect to failing a test and what it means for the IUT.

Which may be viewed as a separate thread?
Determining the overall result from the sum of test outcomes.
Not addressed so far?


>
> Thus, with respect to the TA, we should stay away from making statements
> like (b) - there are other factors (e.g., conformance clauses, the
> organization doing the testing, certification, etc) that provide the
> rules for an IUT passing or failing a set of tests.


Which may be viewed as usage issues?
How a user uses this spec is really outside of this SC.
Perhaps our loose scope enables such confusion.

regards




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