Re: preparation for next TC... please point me to unapproved test cases...

Hi Andy, all
On 16 Oct 2010, at 11:15, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> On 15/10/10 14:39, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > a little bit of help asked kindly from you:
> >
> > I want to dive a bit more into test cases on Tuesday again, if you remember unapproved test cases and can send me pointers, I't appreciate it (would make my life harvesting the mailinglist and CVS easier) thanks!
> >
> > Axel
> If we are approving tests, we ought to sort the format out first so that
> any approved tests can be left exactly as-is.
> There are some outstanding issues with the test format:
> 1/ Various @@@ the doc.

I went over the doc, still some TODOs left, but I hope usable now.

> 2/ use of qt:query in update test - I have suggested use ut:request so
> the range is not a query.

I went back to use ut:query, ut:data, ut:graphData in the ut: namespace, see
changes in [1] and

> 3/ qt:data/qt:data for entailment tests
> I can't actually remember state of discussion - it's not used in the
> entailment manifest currently AFAICS.

I resolved this in the current version of the test case structure document, as 
we concluded in
see changes in [1].

> 4/ Testing the 3 protocols (query, update, http)
> For update protocol, we seem to have mixed that into the manifest for
> update tests. (e.g. "ut:result ut:success").  I'm not sure this is a
> good idea.

Hmmm, I see the point, but I don't have a better proposal at this stage.
For the moment, I suggest to go forward with "ut:result ut:success", etc.
unless someone has a better proposal (whereupon I'd be happy to fix/update affected test cases.

>         Andy



Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 02:57:12 UTC