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

Re: New Possible TestGL outline

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 13:53:16 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030309135131.00b13658@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Excellent.  The new organization and structure is clear, to the point, and 
addresses all my concerns.  Many thanks to Peter and Patrick.

lynne


At 10:31 AM 3/9/2003 -0500, pfawcett wrote:

>Howdy folks,
>
>This is a brief break down of the new structure/outline for TestGL that 
>Patrick and I
>came up with after fridays meeting. We both think that this has a 
>significantly better
>flow to it, addressing some of Lynne's major general concerns. We also 
>tried to steer
>away from 'loaded language' like methodology, test framework and a few 
>other terms we
>found in the document that caused difficulty as they meant different 
>things to different
>folks. We also tried to condense things down a bit. At the beginning we 
>thought we would
>be getting rid of a guideline but instead we ended up creating a new one. 
>But the checkpoints
>are down to a reasonable 2-4 per guideline rather than up to 14 in some.
>Finally we made an effort to not duplicate effort (and thus potentially 
>get out of sync) with
>other documents. Primarily this concerns the interaction of TestGL and 
>OpsGL. Ops has a
>number of checkpoints concerning how test materials are contributed, what 
>criteria
>must be followed and so on. So we made an effort not to re-include that here.
>Many of these do not have priorities assigned yet either.
>Finally we tried to steer clear of the "this is the right way to write a 
>test suite" and
>instead focus on the "this is what a good test suite should be composed of".
>Lynne's new checkpoint for Issue 107 (that's just been posted would fit 
>nicely in to
>the new G1 or G2.
>If nothing else it can server as a basis for discussion on Monday, is this 
>a better organization than before
>and are we missing any thing.
>
>Thanks,
>Peter
>
>Outline of new guidelines:
>
>G1 - high level functional analysis of spec to determine strategy of test 
>development. (was G2-G3)
>         - combine 2.1 and 2.2 in to one checkpoint
>                 analyze the specification and determine how to structure 
> test materials.
>                 determine what testing areas the specification is 
> composed of.
>         - 3.1 determine how to cover each area. Is only one approach 
> going to be used or will
>                 there be more than one.
>         - 1.10 develop user scenarios for the specification.
>         (move 3.2 to ex tec or some such or as descriptive text.)
>
>G2 - deep analysis the spec and extract what needs to be tested and how 
>(was G1)
>         - extract assertions/normative language and tag
>                 according to category - Using categories provided by patrick
>                 In other words rather than having explicit checkpoints 
> for each required,
>                 optional, depreciated, discretionary, under-defined, etc 
> asserts,
>                 have a checkpoint that has all asserts or normative 
> language extracted and
>                 then grouped by category. It's the same basic idea but it 
> takes 4 checkpoints into one.
>         - determine level of coverage (depth/breadth) and priority of 
> coverage (what's
>                 most important).
>
>G3 - test management system (was part of G4)
>         - Have a test management system
>         - the system must support meta data like documentation, pass/fail 
> criteria,
>                 coverage level, state of test, association back to asserts,
>                 and dimensions of variability.
>
>G4 - test suite/cases development (was G6)
>         - prototype test framework (6.2)
>         (ops deals with submission and criteria for acceptable submissions)
>
>G5 - test execution. (was part of G4)
>         - The metadata from the management system must provide sufficient 
> information
>         to allow tests to be executed in a predicable and consistent way.
>         - automation is encouraged (cross platform stuff goes to ExTec.)
>         - system must allow for tests to be filtered based on metadata 
> criteria. (This
>                 is where the DOV really enters in for a test suite rather 
> than in the analysis part.
>                 In the analysis you want to identify them but here is 
> where you really care)
>         - the test execution process should save output from tests for 
> analysis (pass/fail,
>                 what cases failed, and logs if relevant).
>
>G6 - result reporting (G5)
>         - must support result reporting (5.1)
>         - it should create reports as a unified package (for example like 
> a web page (5.3))
>         - It must indicate what passed and failed.
>         - It should be automated if possible
>         - It should supported filtering and comparison of results
>
>G7 - conformance testing. (G7)
>         - encourage vendors to use the test suite. (p1)
>         - encourage vendors to publish results (p3)
Received on Sunday, 9 March 2003 13:53:54 GMT

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