Re: A Method for Writing Testable Conformance Clauses and its Applications (Was Re: Write up of test assertion extraction methodology)

Hi Scott,

On Jan 20, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Scott Wilson < 
 > wrote:

> Hi Marcos,
> I think this is a really good piece of work - I'll be pointing a few  
> people from other spec orgs at the draft as its addressing a common  
> requirement.

Excellent, thanks.

> (As an implementer I found the approach - especially the  
> implementation reports - really useful and easy to follow in  
> practice.)

I'm happy to hear that you found them useful! In the future, I want to  
make the table sortable (e.g. group by verdict or only show fails,  
etc.), and allow the ability to remove implementations from table, so  
it's easier to compare (e.g., A vs B). if you have any further  
suggestions to make imp reports more usable, please let me know.

> S
> On 19 Jan 2010, at 15:49, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> A draft of "A Method for Writing Testable Conformance Clauses and  
>> its Applications" in now available for review online [1]. For those  
>> that have not seen it, it basically just documents how we are  
>> standardizing the Widget specs and some basic QA processes:
>> Please consider this a working draft, as it likely contains typos,  
>> and a couple of half-baked ideas, etc. Comments are, of course,  
>> welcomed. It is expected that this document will be published as a  
>> working group note at some point in the future.
>> Kind regards,
>> Marcos
>> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>> Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>>>> Hi Marcos,
>>>> Le mardi 05 janvier 2010 à 17:45 +0100, Dominique Hazael-Massi 
>>>> eux a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>> Le mardi 05 janvier 2010 à 17:44 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
>>>>>> I was literally doing an editorial pass right now. I would  
>>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>> another day or two to finish (and for you and the WG to have a
>>>>>> chance to
>>>>>> review the changes). If I check-in a draft by Thursday, could  
>>>>>> we aim to
>>>>>> publish next week?
>>>>> Sure, sounds good to me. Thanks for your help on this!
>>>> Any news on your editing pass :) ?
>>> Sorry, I'm still working on it... it's taking a little longer than I
>>> first anticipated :( I've rewritten most of it to describe a bit  
>>> more
>>> clearly how the method was applied.

Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 05:05:15 UTC