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

Re: OpsGL QA-commitment-group

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 00:17:16 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030507235343.026dd0c0@rockynet.com>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 08:54 AM 5/7/2003 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:


>On Wed, 7 May 2003, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
> > CP1.3: Commit to complete test materials. [Priority 3] Conformance
> > Requirements: the WG MUST commit to produce or adopt a complete Test
> > Materials before Recommendation, where complete is defined as: at
> > least one test case for every identifiable conformance requirement
> > of the specification.
>
>I apologize if I missed the discussion about it, but not all
>"identifiable conformance requirements" are testable and, hence, can
>have at least one test case. Should "testable" qualifier be added?

I don't have a problem adding such a qualifier.  Objections anyone?

>Should we demand that all conformance requirements are classified
>based on their perceived testability?

We have a SpecGL issues group, yet to be discussed, about conformance 
requirements and test assertions.  I'd propose to postpone this question 
until that issue group comes up for discussion.  (I.e., I think it would be 
okay to dodge this question in OpsGL, esp. in the topic of a WG recording 
its general future commitment to QA.)


>Also, it is not clear from the above wording whether it is OK for N
>identifiable conformance requirements (N > 1) to be covered by 1 test
>case. Again, my apologies if the answer is already in some document.

I don't think that we intended to address any such limitations in these 
early CPs -- they are about recorded early (e.g., Charter) commitment of 
the working group to some level of future QA activity and 
deliverables.  This is effectively about atomicity of test cases, and at 
the Charter commitment phase, I wouldn't think it appropriate to ask the WG 
to consider and commit to such details.

Regards,
-Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 02:23:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT