- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:24:35 +0100
- To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
- CC: public-xml-schema-testsuite@w3.org, Henry Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
> > Since our requirement for getting to PR is to show that the > changes between 1.0 and 1.1 are implementable and have been > tested to show they have been successfully implemented, the > class of tests for which results differ on the same input > is crucially important to me. Making those tests into pairs > or larger sets of tests is a large step toward making it harder > to get to PR. Is there some compensating virtues that I am > missing? > Conceptually I think we have a set of triples (I, C, O) where I is the input to the test, C is the conditions/configuration under which it should be run, and O is the expected output. Perhaps we are debating whether or not it is useful to group these by common I. I think the test driver is a little simpler if we don't (i.e. if we keep it flat) and reporting/analyzing results might also be a bit easier that way, while maintenance of the test suite is perhaps a little simpler if it is grouped. What's a muddle, though, is if we do a bit of both. The flat model would be along the lines <test> <input>...</input> <conditions>...</conditions> <result>...</result> </test> <test> <input>...</input> <conditions>...</conditions> <result>...</result> </test> The grouped model would be more like <test> <input>...</input> <outcome> <conditions>...</conditions> <result>...</result> </outcome> <outcome> <conditions>...</conditions> <result>...</result> </outcome> </test> (Of course, if the condition is simple it can be made an attribute of <result> and outcome can then be collapsed; but I'd suggest avoiding that, because the conditions can become complex over time). I've abstracted away from detailed questions about what <test> is: but in practice this is relevant because we have a testGroup containing a number of tests each with its own outcome, and this makes it a bit difficult to use the grouped structure if the same conditions apply to all tests within the group. I think it's this complexity that tends to lead me to the "flat" structure, where the conditions (including of course the version) are always written at the level of the <testGroup> element. Michael Kay
Received on Friday, 18 June 2010 16:25:08 UTC