[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tag] better example on "testable expression" ?
Would the proposed rewording satisfy a definition of “testability”, for example, from [1], as
“testability A proposition is testable if there is such a procedure that assesses the truth-value of a proposition with a high confidence level”
[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
-----Original Message-----
As the guideline starts to circulate, here is a suggestion for illustrating how the predicate could be worded, in a way that is more "testable" than the normative statement, also allowing the TA user (e.g. test suite writer) to not need be an expert in the spec domain:
Consider the following as a requirement from a specification on “widgets” : · [requirement 100] “A widget MUST be of cuboid shape”. (cuboid = like a cube but faces could be rectangular) Here is a test assertion addressing this requirement:
TA id: widget-TA100-1 Target: widget Normative Source: “widget specification”, requirement 100 Predicate: Each one of the [the widget] facets is of rectangular shape. Prescription Level: mandatory "The TA predicate is worded as an assertion, not as a requirement (the 'MUST' keyword is absent from the predicate but reflected in the prescription level). It has a clear Boolean value: either the statement is true, or it is false for a particular target. In the above case, it is only assumed that the testing environment has the ability to detect rectangular surfaces - e.g. by optical scan. The wording of the predicate takes this reality into account, instead of just repeating the normative statement - so this TA will provide guidance to a test suite writer who is not expert in 3D-geometry "
Jacques |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]