W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2003

TestGL comments

From: lynne rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@Nist.gov>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:36:42 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030823192059.00b133e0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Ck1.3  ConfReq.  Don't need to define the scope, goal and purpose, since 
this is already requested in CP 1.1.  Also, suggest being more direct in 
what is required.  Suggested wording:
"The testing approach of each logical partition of the test suite MUST be 
described."

In several of our test development efforts, we can automatically generate 
tests (e.g., Schema's datatypes) and will need to generate tests manually 
or via another method for other parts of the Schema spec.  For datatypes we 
don't generate test assertions - the specification is very explicit is 
defining the datatype, how to derive data types, and ranges of values.

Cp2.2.  I think that what is important is that this information is 
captured.  For our test suites, where we do not generate test assertions, 
this information is captured in various ways - as part of a test 
description file which is associated with every test case or in each test 
case in its documentation

I think that the 5th bullet (whether the assertion is ambiguous...) should 
be removed from this list, but could be put into its own checkpoint
GL3, 2nd para - "This process should address ...." The checkpoints don't 
address the items in this list, e.g., where they will be stored, filtering.


  
Received on Saturday, 23 August 2003 19:37:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT