W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > November 2011

Testsuite file examples

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:05:42 -0700
Message-ID: <4EB453A6.5020304@w3.org>
To: Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org


Le 04/11/2011 02:48, Florian Stegmaier a écrit :
> Hi Thierry,
>
> We had already a few Wiki pages summarizing possible test cases:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/TestSuite
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/TestSuite_implementation


Thanks, we had a look at these pages produced during the last F2F.

We have the same understanding of the 3 blocks
Testsuite, implementation and implementation report.

Ok instead of testing interface and methods we agree that we will test 
features, which are represented by test files. The set of files will be 
called the testsuite.


We have concentrated on the testsuite itself.
We started writting a few tests, for two formats (XMP and IPTC).

For example we have two scenarios, one is for a file with multiple 
attribute entries, and another file for an attribute with no content.


We have also produce a implementation report, collecting all the 
testfiles associated to a Json file allowing verification of the output 
of each implementation for each test.
Extra columns would also report if the test "passes" or "fails" or 
"partial".

A first implementation report draft is available at
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API/implementation-report.html

We should agree if this is a  way forward.
If so we extent our list of test files covering all necessary features.

for example:
-qualifier and subtype
getContributorWithartist.xmp
getContributorWithartist.iptc

-optional elements (partial content)
getFrameSizeWithUnits.xmp
getFrameSizeWithUnits.iptc

- etc.

We Shall discuss this on the mailing list and during our next telecon.



>
> Werner and me already tried to explain a few times, that testing interfaces is not really a good idea since they are not reachable in most implementations from the outside. There are only few methods, which can be called from outside.
>
> I completely share your proposal to have the three different (let´s say) parts - it is also similar to what the fragments are doing (a colleague of mine is conducting tests for them at the moment).
>
> At the moment i am not quiet sure how we should proceed. Maybe it is the best choice to continue the discussion in the next teleconf (hopefully with a few participants). I can prepare a proposal for next Tuesday where i collect the tests, which i think that should be made.
>
> Best.
> _____________________________
> Dipl. Inf. Florian Stegmaier
> Chair of Distributed Information Systems
> University of Passau
> Innstr. 43
> 94032 Passau
>
> Room 248 ITZ
>
> Tel.: +49 851 509 3063
> Fax: +49 851 509 3062
>
> stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de
> https://www.dimis.fim.uni-passau.de/iris/
> http://twitter.com/fstegmai
> _____________________________
>
> Am 04.11.2011 um 06:33 schrieb Florian Stegmaier:
>
>> Hi Thierry!
>>
>> I hope sou have a productive time at TPAC!
>>
>> I will discuss this things with Werner today and respond to you soon.
>>
>> Let me ask a few questions:
>> - what is the progress of the WEBAPPS use case?
>> - Are there any news from Yves regarding the API issues?
>> - As far as i know it was planned to get in touch with browser vendors - any news about this?
>> - Have you discussed the UC&Req spec yet?
>>
>> Could you please send the link to the minutes? Otherwise it is very hard to follow you :(
>>
>> Cheers.
>> _____________________________
>> Dipl. Inf. Florian Stegmaier
>> Chair of Distributed Information Systems
>> University of Passau
>> Innstr. 43
>> 94032 Passau
>>
>> Room 248 ITZ
>>
>> Tel.: +49 851 509 3063
>> Fax: +49 851 509 3062
>>
>> stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de
>> https://www.dimis.fim.uni-passau.de/iris/
>> http://twitter.com/fstegmai
>> _____________________________
>>
>> Am 03.11.2011 um 22:12 schrieb Thierry MICHEL<tmichel@w3.org>:
>>
>>> Florian,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your implementation.
>>>
>>> We need 3 different things
>>>
>>> - an API test suite (a set of test cases)
>>> - an API implementations inputing these test cases
>>> - an API implementaion report, a document listing the test cases that pass or fail the implementation.
>>>
>>>
>>> We have been thinking that the testsuite should reflect the API functionalities. That is indeed what we need to test.
>>> The following are probably the interfaces and methods which need to be tested.
>>>
>>> Your implementation probably used these or a subset of these interfaces.
>>>
>>> So we were thinking of your implementation outputting an additional table for the methods.
>>>
>>> This would probably be the way to report the implementation status in our implementaion document.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.1 interfaces with multiple methods
>>>
>>> 1-MediaResource interface
>>> - createMediaResource
>>> - getMediaProperty
>>>
>>> 4.2-AsyncMediaResource interface
>>>
>>> - getMediaProperty
>>> - getOriginalMetadata
>>> - handleEvent ???
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.3-SyncMediaResource interface
>>> - getMediaProperty
>>> - getOriginalMetadata
>>>
>>> 4.4-MediaAnnotation interface
>>> -->  has seven attributes:
>>> * fragmentIdentifier
>>> * language
>>> * mappingType
>>> * propertyName
>>> * sourceFormat
>>> * statusCode
>>> * value
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4.6-MetadataSource interface
>>> -->  has two attributes:
>>> * metadataSource
>>> * sourceFormat
>
>
Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 21:08:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 4 November 2011 21:08:42 GMT