- From: <lsr@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:12:39 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Cc: ot@w3.org
Minutes: 23 Oct 2003 Morning TestGL Progression: Editorial resources = Patrick. Dom to help with formatting, Vanitha to help with issues list. Working Draft to WG by end of Nov, to include concepts and other front matter. Need a published WD before Last Call. Need a schedule. As WGs are engaged to capture their experiences, Need to develop a template/questionnaire/outline of points to capture during the discussion – ACTION: Vanitha by 3rd week of Nov. TestGL Guideline Discussion CP 4.1 Define the test execution process [Priority 1] Repeatable and Reproducible. Suggest a new CP to have test materials define if they are repeatable and reproducible. Need to supply definitions. ACTION: Lynne to supply definitions – Nov 1. In discussion that these terms are goals that developers should strive to achieve. Add a CP –Document where there are areas that are not repeatable and/or reproducible and why. If specific to a test, it should be documented in the metadata for the test. Rationale discussion: Does the order to run the test materials go here? Should comment on it here. This talks about how to run the tests. Make sure that every test that should be run are run and those that shouldn’t be run are not run. 4.2 Automate the test execution process Requirements are that (1) Must be automated and (2) platform independent. Not always need or possible to have cross-platform. Take platform independent out of requirement and put into discussion as a goal 4.3 Integrate results reporting into the automated test execution process Results reporting is the aggregation of the results. The more you expect the harness to do the more issues you have with implementers ability to use the harness, since they may want to use their own for their own reasons. So, require that there be a test harness, but allow for people to substitute their own reporting mechanism or harness. Should there be instructions for using the test suite (with test harness) indicate that the harness is not required for making a conformance claim. Important issue, should be captured, but out of scope of this CP. Put in generic discussion for Guideline 4 – keeping it general, since this has broader applicability. G5: Documenting and Packaging 5.1 Review the test materials Move first sentence of ConfReq to the discussion. Object of this CP is test material management system. Both modules (objects) are required for conformance. The review is that this has been in use for several years and being used – that would be a valid review. Review all test materials. Add ‘all’ to all applicable places – need to review use of ‘all’ in entire document. 5.2 Document the test materials Redundant. 5.3 Package the test materials into a test suite Test Suite is all the pieces of materials needed, wrapped up together. As written not testable. Make a minimal list of what MUST be provided, including: user documentation, IPR, test harness if supplied, referenced output if defined. Need to make sure that ‘test suite’ is understood. Test suite is the package (sum) of all the components needed to test an implementation. Test materials are the components that make up the test suite. 5.4 Test the test suite Management system is the object. David to help define the 2 objects of TestGL. In discussion, include the frequency of applying the test plan and testing. 5.5 Solicit feedback on the test materials define how to give feedback and that feedback needs to be used. Guideline 6 Define the process for reporting test results 6.1 Tests should report their status in a consistent manner Need to add definitions for the terms. Reword. Remove Cannot Tell. In discussion, reference that terms came from EARL. Can you map these to other states or must you use these ‘states’? If these apply, then MUST use them. These are states, we have definitions of the states, definitions are normative, not providing labels for the states, if state applies, use it. Recommend that if English, use these labels. Change status to outcome. 6.2 Tests should report diagnostic information Must provide diagnostic information, remainder of sentence is rationale. 6.3 Define and document the process for reporting test results As is, it is already in OpsGL Rewrite as Define an interface to allow publishing of results. 6.4 Allow test results to be filtered Have a results management system. 6.5 Automate the results reporting system automate the system. Test Case Description Language http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/10/tcdl-20031013.html Goal is to get reaction to the proposal. DM’s overview and introduction to the document. Deliberately marked this as v1.0, since there will be further integration of this with other projects and as there is more experience and reaction to this. Earlier versions of this have been seen in the OASIS TC, playing around with it in XQuery. The document includes guidance to the WG, providing a meta-specification. The intent is to nail down what will go along with the test suite as its catalogue. Mary Brady’s comments not direct impact, her concerns can be accommodated. This is more about the package that comes out of the WG. Have a set of modules and then the WG could decide which modules (e.g., dependency module) to include. Not intended to be a controlling filter on test cases. Designed to support automation, but not presume automation. Presume that reference output is available, but not the format of the output. The WG would define the set of scenarios, where a scenario is a complete description of a single case and its resources. Alex’s thoughts: Mixing two distinct goals – (1) to document and assemble information about test cases and related test information, (2) more vague, but help WG to do its thing. For example, it is confusing why description of test case related to download success. Download part of test lab operations that need to make sure they have all the necessary components to execute the test properly. This does not dictate the tools or environment needed to execute the tests. Goal should be to document test cases and not how to execute them. To succeed TCDL would have multiple tools that use it. These tools shouldn’t be in scope. Patrick’s thoughts: Is this rich enough to provide all the metadata to allow a consuming program to select an appropriate set of tests and run those tests? It does: (1) initial set up, (2) execution of the subject to produce its results (3) comparison, (4) clean up, archiving, post-operation maintenance, etc. First impression is that it isn’t comprehensive enough. TCDL is limited to metadata on test cases, including parameters for test cases. Need to make this explicit. TCDL is metadata about the test case code, not the code. Seems that this is at a low level and structured towards validation testing, comparing input/output, but not help API or protocol. Is it possible to be general and useful? Want to enable different test labs (consumers) to download the appropriate test sets. Perhaps need to limit goal and scope. It captures the majority of testing that W3C does. Next Steps. Is this worth pursuing in the WG? Yes, but, other than DM, seems that there aren’t resources to work on it. Good to have this as a tool within the arsenal of tools. ACTION David to let us know how he wants the WG to consider this work – endorse it, contribute to development, etc.
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2003 14:12:59 UTC