- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:10:38 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: > The current definition of Test Assertion: > > From the QA Glossary: http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary > Test Assertion > A set of premises that are known to be true by definition in the spec. Using this, we get a definition of an atomic test assertion: A single premise that are known to be true by definition in the spec. > From the SpecGL, which builds upon this definition, further refining it in > the context of SpecGL > Test Assertion > a statement of behavior, action, or condition that can be measured or > tested. In this case, the proposed "cannot be decomposed" definition implies that a statement is something you can or cannot decompose (into simpler statements?). I am not sure that is clear/strict enough. For example, "an implementation MUST X" is a single statement that can, in theory, be decomposed into two: "an implementation MUST x1" and "an implementation MUST x2" where x1 and x2 together form X (e.g. X could be "attach an appropriate warning". If two warnings are appropriate, then x1 and x2 would be "attach warning 1" and "attach warning 2". Does that count as decomposition? Or is X atomic in this case? Alex. On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: > > Atomic test assertion: a test assertion that cannot be decomposed further. >
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 14:10:42 UTC