W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > July 2002

RE: Updated Test Guidelines draft - 0701

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:24:31 -0700
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F605075208@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Hi, Lofton! 
Thanks for a pretty extensive list.

1) Agreed
2) Alignment with the spec guidelines (at least terminology wise) is
definitely on the plate, but we haven't look into it yet.
3) Agree, and we don't really call them Untestables. Agree about the
Glossary. The last three (1.6-1.8) are pursuing 2 goals 
      - feedback to the spec to initiate future errata
      - cataloging incoming tests that fall into these areas for future
revision when corresponding errata are issued.

4) I interpret Dimitris comment as list the available ones in the Test
Guidelines or ExTech document. And then the checkpoint still asks to
identify "how" and if possible reuse the existing methodology.
 
5-9) Good summary of issues. Short answer is - most of them are known
issues, but haven't got to fix them yet.
10) I see Framework checkpoint as requirements. "Goodness principles" is
the solution that you can use to satisfy the requirement. We will have
them, most likey in the Tech Ex document. Your 2 examples are addressed
by requirements in Ck 4.11, 4.2, 4.3.

11) This is exactly the reason for the Ck 2.3, 2.4. I call them "sample
tests". We definitely need to work on the prose more, but it is good
that we have an examples out there already.

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/07/qaframe-test-0701.html


-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:00 PM
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Updated Test Guidelines draft - 0701


Here are some comments about the 0701 draft Test Guidelines.

1.)  TestGL Glossary:  we should start such a chapter, and throw stuff
in 
there which needs to be defined (we can work out the definitions later,
and 
migrate at least some to the QA Glossary if appropriate.  Or migrate 
generic versions to QA Glossary, leaving expanded "functional"
definitions 
here.  Or ...  But it will make the document more readable during
development).

2.) "Levels of Conformance" (1.3, 4.9, other?):  this doesn't fit well
with 
SpecGL.  We need to rework it in terms of "conformance variability" 
model.  No suggestion yet.

3.) "The Untestables":

1.4 (discretionary), 1.5 (optional), 1.6 (undefined/ambigous), 1.7 
(explicitly undefined), 1.8 (contradictory)

Actually, they're not all untestable.  The first two are conditionally 
testable, based on choices that the product has made, and the test
results 
can be factored into conformance statements about the product.  The last

three do not lend themselves to any *conformance* testing (although, one

could write diagnostic tests to see what a product does.)  Perhaps these

are useful distinctions.  And I can see at least 5 entries for the TGL 
Glossary from these 5 checkpoints.

4.) CK1.3:  It looks like an issue in here, as the dd and WG 
interpretations seem to be opposite: choice from enumerated list versus 
custom definition.

5.) CK2.3:  "sample test scenario" seems like a candidate for further 
definition, explanation, example (or all three).

6.) CK2.4:  reference to "discretionary and vague":  I can see 
"discretionary" here (and "optional"), but I'm not sure about the other 
"untestables".

7.) "The Unverifiables"

4.1, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, 5.4, 5.6, 5.7:  these are unverifiable or borderline

unverifiable as stated.  There are a couple of distinct 
problems:  subjective metrics ("easy" in 4.4, "ease of use" in 4.5 and 
5.4); difficult to measure or confirm ("review available..adopt if 
applicable" in 4.1, 5.1); borderline ("suitable to publish" in 5.6, 
"sufficient to investigate" in 5.7).  I think we can and should have a 
checkpoint on each of these topics, but they need some creative 
reworking.  Some, e.g., the last two, could be salvaged by careful 
definition of criteria in the (future) prose explanation of the
checkpoint, 
or in the Extech companion.

8.) Candidates for TGL Glossary:  test framework, test case management.

9.) CK1.2, [KG] "need definition of test assertion":  for a functional 
definition for TestGL, I like the one at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002May/0023.html.

10.)  Do we intend to address any goodness principles on test materials?
We 
don't seem to go beyond frameworks.   E.g.,  should they (TM) be 
self-documenting?  Should they use W3C technologies and standards,
instead 
of proprietary or non-standard technology (e.g., ECMAscript versus
private 
scripting language, etc)?

11.)  Finally, CK6.2 raises a question.  In SVG conformance testing, we 
made a design that called for light-weight breadth-first TS ("Basic 
Effectivity") to be written first.  Its tests were simple and not 
necessarily even atomic, but rather provided some light coverage of all
of 
the SVG functional areas.  Its value is diagnostic, "pre-conformance" if

you like -- has the implementation made any effort at all in given 
functional areas?  Its application would typically precede a detailed 
atomic probing of all of the bits of the functional areas.  The overall 
approach is something we called "progressive testing", and the
progressive 
referred both to the allocation of resources to build the TS, and the 
application of the TS to an implementation under test.  (In fact, due to

the hideous cost of building graphics tests, SVG has never gotten beyond

the ~125 BE tests, to the thousands of DT tests that would make a 
high-confidence conformance suite, and has never adopted a framework
like 
XSLT for accepting and integrating DT tests.)

We considered this BE TS to be immensely valuable, but I'm not seeing
how 
it or our overall approach would fit into the TestGL.  (Btw, there are 
things in the SVG TS that will fail and ought rightly to fail some 
checkpoints, so I'm not just being a SVG TS chauvinist here.)

All for now,
-Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 21:25:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT