Re: Generating tests [was: Re: Review SPARQL Query?]

On 16/01/11 21:32, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> On 1/16/2011 12:01 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> Birte,
>>
>> I think it's better to wait until the doc is finished. If, however, it
>> fits better with your time, then there are just one or two specific
>> points that need work (+ general editorial) so reviewing the rest could
>> work.
>>
>> Overall:
>>
>> What we are missing most is tests. In the test work so far, we have
>> ended up sometimes identifying differing expectations of the design with
>> the WG. As LC is suppose to be design-stable and changes expensive, I
>> think it's important to have test coverage before LC to make sure the WG
>> is in proper agreement on the details.
>
> Hi Andy (and everyone else),
>
> Do you have a suggestion for how we can generate tests? Perhaps we ought
> to enumerate all of the SPARQL 1.1 features (beginning with query), and
> then split them up amongst all of us on the WG on Tuesday -- if each
> person came up with a few tests per feature, it would probably get us a
> long way to where we want to get.
>
> What do people think?
>
> Lee

Works for me.

There is some patchy coverage e.g.

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/grouping/

but I have not been tracking what's approved, what's covered and what 
areas of debate there are.

	Andy

>

>>
>> Andy
>>
>> On 13/01/11 15:24, Steve Harris wrote:
>>> That's correct from ,my point of view.
>>>
>>> - Steve
>>>
>>> On 2011-01-13, at 11:07, Birte Glimm wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy, Steve,
>>>> just to confirm that I did understand this correctly in the last
>>>> teleconf. I wait with the review until you tell me that the doc is
>>>> ready, right?
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Birte
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
>>>> Computing Laboratory
>>>> Parks Road
>>>> Oxford
>>>> OX1 3QD
>>>> United Kingdom
>>>> +44 (0)1865 283520
>>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 16:00:00 UTC