- From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:33:05 +0200
- To: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
El 15/04/14 16:02, Sergio Fernández escribió: > Hi Raúl, > > thanks for the update. For starting to discuss before the slot at the > F2F5, how/when do you plan to address some things that now are not > defined to be automatically executed? Like natural language definitions. > > For example, now we have things like: > > <#TCC1> a td:TestCase ; > td:precondition > "The LDP server contains an LDPC at <LDPC URI>", > "The membership predicate used by the LDPC is identified by <P URI>", > "The membership subject used by the LDPC is identified by <S URI>" . > > Something to discuss tomorrow with detail. Hi Sergio, Regarding the preconditions, this is something already discussed. The issue here is that for the evaluation of an LDP server we have to assume that it is a black box and that we can only access it through its API. The problem arises because there are some preconditions that cannot be assessed through a server API (like those above). Also, automating the execution of preconditions using the API may even make no sense for some tests. In the example above (testing GET on a container), for checking the precondition we need that GET on a container works. :) The only way for the automation of precondition checking is to be able to access the server through a back door, and here the problem is that this will be something totally different for each server and, hence, the developers of each server will have to implement their own code for that. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend the meeting tomorrow. But it would be interesting to know from those of you implementing the tests how are you coping with either preconditions checking or preparing the initial state of the server so the preconditions are met. Kind regards, > On 10/04/14 17:24, Raúl García Castro wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> You can find an updated version of the test cases in the repository: >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/69d9f383c7dd/Test%20Cases/LDP%20Test%20Cases.html >> >> >> >> The tests have been updated to the contents of the 2nd LCWD and some >> ReSpec warnings have been removed from the document. >> >> Major comments: >> .- Remember that we are only covering absolute requirements. >> .- Tests are now categorized into tests for LDPRs, Basic, Direct, and >> Indirect Containers. >> .- We still have a lot of non-testable requirements. If you think that >> any of them could be tested just tell. >> .- Eric, we haven't updated the two tests you defined for posting >> containers to containers. The current specification does not say >> anything about this and there could be plenty of possibilities with the >> current container classification. >> >> Feel free to comment on the tests and to define tests for optional >> capabilities (up to now we just cover POST). >> >> And, for those people implementing test executors, remember that you can >> use the RDFa annotations to support your implementation: >> http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/extract?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fdvcs.w3.org%2Fhg%2Fldpwg%2Fraw-file%2F69d9f383c7dd%2FTest%2520Cases%2FLDP%2520Test%2520Cases.html&rdfa_lite=false&vocab_expansion=false&embedded_rdf=true&validate=yes&space_preserve=true&vocab_cache_report=false&vocab_cache_bypass=false >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> > -- Dr. Raúl García Castro http://www.garcia-castro.com/ Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid Phone: +34 91 336 65 96 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 14:33:30 UTC