Re: FW: [Bug 4311] test suite framework?

Please feel free to amend the issue with your additional concerns (or a 
link to that email).

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 377 9295

public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 02/08/2007 06:16:52 PM:

> 
> I think we should consider few more questions as we think through this:
> 
> f) What is the additional cost imposed by a test suite framework on 
> interop implementers?
> g) What is the interaction between a schedule for test suite 
> framework development and the CR schedule?
> h) What is the minimum needed to declare victory on CR interop testing?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-qa-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> qa-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:33 PM
> To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
> Subject: [Bug 4311] test suite framework?
> 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4311
> 
>            Summary: test suite framework?
>            Product: WS-Policy
>            Version: FPWD
>           Platform: All
>         OS/Version: All
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P2
>          Component: Test Suite
>         AssignedTo: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
>         ReportedBy: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
>          QAContact: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
> 
> 
> Title: Test suite framework?
> 
> Description: To repeat what I think Felix said, is there an alternative
> > document template for test cases, e.g. like WSDL groups'
> > Should the WG use a framework for test case dev?
> > Who would prepare such a framework?
> > Who would maintain the framework?
> > Who would contribute test cases that conform to the framework?
> > What is the schedule for such a test case framework?
> 
> (NOTE: need link to the IRC minutes where this was discussed)
> 
> Proposal: TBD
> 
>