- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 05:43:01 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030618054227.00ac0620@mailserver.nist.gov>
Comments? June 18, morning Scribe: Lynne QA WG expresses its Many thanks to FORTH, Prof Markatos and Anna Doxastaki for hosting the meeting. Also thanks to Prof. Markatos and Anna for hosting a wonderful feast. Many thanks to Anna for handling the local arrangements and for making sure that we had everything we needed to conduct a successful meeting. Schedule for processing SpecGL Disposition of Comments: Aug 1st Next Publication to WG: Sept 1 TestGL discussion Review and overview of TestGL document structure and content. Guildelines deal with analysis, structure, and management of the test suite. The term Test management system (#GL3) in refers to management of the test cases. Change name to Test materials management system. ‘Test framework’ (GL#4) refers to the test harness. Rather than the Plan for conformance testing (GL#6), change to Promote conformance testing. GL 1 deals with analysis of the test suite. CP1.1 Define test suite scope Remove sentence: “Note, a WG may have multiple test suites for different parts… “ CP1.1 and CP1.3 Are these redundant? No. CP1.1 refers to the overall scope/goal. CP1.3 refers to the test methodology applied to the whole test suite as well as applied to components (parts) of the test suite. GL 2 Identify and tag testable assertions CP2.1 Is it a requirement that TAs be developed? Yes. Need to reword conformance requirements to indicate that the TAs must come from the spec if they are there, but they may be somewhere else. Make P1 CP2.2 Metadata must be associated with test assertions Rationale is not really a rationale, but could be a title. Also, do we want SHOULD or MUST. Make P1. Current 2.2 title is the rationale. Make the title, “Metadata MUST be associated with TAs.” Need to make active voice. Require a minimum set of required metadata. The rest of the metadata could be either a SHOULD in this CP, a P2 checkpoint or in ExTech. Decided to have a P2 checkpoint with a second set of metadata. Will need to develop a schema for this. Also, indicate that these sets of metadata in not exhaustive. GL3 test cases management systems Note that we assume that the tests exist, we don’t discuss how they appear. We go from TAs to managing the test cases. Should there be something regarding the creation of tests. OpsGL addresses some of this. Missing a guideline on performing QA on test cases do QA on your test materials. CP3.2 rephrase to be similar to CP2.2, i.e., the notion of having a minium set of metadata CP3.4 Does this belong? This should reflect the storing of results. Actually, it may be possible to remove, since this is obvious - all test cases have an expected results. Saying this is O.K. Should this be a separate checkpoint. Yes. Reword, You must have expected results associated with each of your test cases. Make P1 Do we need a better definition of a test case management system? The concepts (functions) here are fuzzy, there is no clear line between what is part of the management system and what is part of the framework. The functions can be done in either systems. For example, selecting the appropriate test cases can be done at build time (of the test suite) or at run time (when executing the test suite). A concepts section would be beneficial. GL4 Provide a test framework. (harness) CP4.1 This should not be P1. The metadata and documentation enables the development of a harness. A test harness is an (automated?) mechanism that provides a consistent interface to testing. Harness refers to the process of executing the tests. Missing checkpoints or a guideline on documentation. Documentation could be part of the harness, but could also be part of other things, e.g., test cases CP4.2 Prototype the test framework Prototype is the wrong word. A framework should not be built in isolation. If you build a harness, then it should be beta tested and tried out. Maybe relate this to the classes of products to ensure that the harness runs on a wide variety of platfoms. The end of the rationale (rfun on wide number of platforms) should be part of the conformance requirements. CP4.3 Automation of testing encouranged Is this different from a harness, can paper be a test harness? A harness provides a process (instructions) for executing the tests in a particular sequence. Change. Summary of GL4 discussion: Broadened into test execution process into 2 topics. 1. Document the process to execute tests, 2. If possible, it is desirable to automate. If automate then 4.2 follows. GL5 Test results Merge CP5.1 and CP5.3. Record not just pass/fail, but other states that apply. There must be a well defined mechansim for reporting, this mechansim does not have to be automated, but automation is desirable. Make the checkpoints analagous to Guideline 4. GL6 Promote for conformance testing Do we need this guideline since some of this is already in OpsGL. In section 1.4 Relationship to other Framework documents, make it clear where this picks up from OpsGL. Add CP6.1 to OpsGL, CP6.2 already in OpsGL. Is it logical to divide into these 3 processes: test management system, test framework and test reporting? Within Test Materials, there are 3 partitions:Test Cases, Test Software, Test Documentation. Need to draft a description of these partitions and provide a discussion of the licenses with suggestions on how to apply the licenses, including a mention that some things straddle the partitions. Review of Comments: 1. DM’s comments apply to a previous TestGL draft: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003May/0026.html DM-1.1 Agree DM1.2 Need to make sure we cover versioning. Should metadata tie back to SpecGL DoV? We talk about filtering, but should filtering on the DoV allowed by the specification be called out? Yes. Want to include or exclude tests based on DoVs. Need to include a test purpose or description. GL4: talking about test case review. Can say something about where get test data from put this is anaylsis guideline. CP5.4: should there be mention of storage of results? Covered in test results management. We don’t mention anything about coverage. Need to add something about coverage. 2. SM’s comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003May/0036.html GL4: concepts have been clarified. CP4.3 Agreed. Add a sentence to clarify. CP5.1 Need to clarify and define terms. Use some of the suggested words. 3. PF’s comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jun/0031.html 1. Addressed 2. Agreed 3. need to look at intro 4. Relates to coverage and strategy. Will say something about coverage. 5, 6, 7. Agreed Processing Plan. WG draft by late September Need ExTech document prior to first call First Last Call: ?? Review of Introduction Disagreement on whether a scope can be a set of requrements. Class of products also included interoperability. Intended audience, delete conformance. Remove or move last paragraph of 1.4. Sections 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 make sure that wording is consistent with other documents. Need to create use cases for TestGL. Review of Conformance and Definitions Definitions need work. Conformance Section needs to be reviewed.
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 05:47:58 UTC