Num | Date | Class | Status | Raised By | Owner |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
001 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Introduction | |||||
Title: Need introductory material | |||||
Description: Need introductory material with structure similar to other Framework docs | |||||
Proposal: Class Of Product is test materials (in later discussion we also realized that we must include test metadata, else we will not be able to address any of the "process issues"). Audience is (in priority order) test developers, WG members, and users of tests. DD and PC hoped there would be no need to define test metadata as a separate COP; they would rather define 'test materials' broadly enough to cover these metadata. On the other hand, including in the term "test materials" a test plan and the results of executing that plan to test those test materials (as in checkpoint 5.4) seems to stretch the definition too far (not to mention introduce a confusing element of recursion). |
|||||
Resolution: | |||||
002 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Concepts - Types of testing | |||||
Title: Clarify and expand types of testing | |||||
Description: "Functional testing" is not a good term - should be renamed (to "other"?). Goal is to cover performance, usability, implementation-dependant features that are not covered by the spec (which is conformance testing) | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
003 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Concepts - Types of testing | |||||
Title: Expand discussion of interoperability testing and compare with conformance testing. | |||||
Description: Interoperability is possible without conformance, but it needs prior agreement, and it doesn't scale in numbers of implementations, or with time. | |||||
Proposal: No - don't lose focus. We've already said that we are addressing conformance test materials. Let's not confuse the issue by introducing interop testing concepts. Issue 004 talks about applying the conf. testing principles to other areas. Enough said. | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
004 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Concepts - Types of testing | |||||
Title: Emphasize usefulness of these guidelines for types of testing other than Conformance | |||||
Description: Note that many forms of
testing can be performed by comparing actual behaviour with behaviour
defined in a "specification". Conformance testing is only such kind. Consequently, even though we will focus on conformance testing, much of what we say is applicable to other kinds of testing. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
005 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Concepts - Types of testing | |||||
Title: Focus of the guidelines | |||||
Description: Should we focus on conformance testing or also cover other kinds of testing? (After all, the group's name is "QA" not "Conformance".) | |||||
Proposal: State that we will focus on conformance testing (for this revision of the doc). | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
006 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Concepts | |||||
Title: Don't mandate a 'waterfall model' of development | |||||
Description: Discuss alternative test-development
strategies. Some examples:
[MS] I don't see where these have anything to do with whether or not a "waterfall model" was used. [PC response] the first bullet in the list below does (test first, develop spec later)... [PC] need a better definition of strategies for development. For example:
We must stress that we don't necessarily require a "waterfall" process, and that the requirements described in the GL can be applied on a recursive basis; we should actually encourage this type of strategy (without requiring it) in this section. [MS] I'd like to add the use case that good QA (and this guideline) will result in good test materials that will improve Q/A and thus, result in less bugs, lower maintenance costs, etc. In other words, this use case illustrates voluntary use of tests as a carrot, rather than the stick as in certification, to improve software and save money. [PC] This seems more like a general rationale for following these guidelines
rather than a use-case. We should certainly incorporate this somewhere. |
|||||
Proposal: We need a short, concise way of defining the "waterfall model". Once we've done that, all we need to say is that this guideline does not imply any one type of model. (We also need to ensure that we do not imply a waterfall model in the wording of guidelines and checkpoints.) References:
|
|||||
Resolution: | |||||
007 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Use Cases | |||||
Title: Need use-cases | |||||
Description: Suggested use-cases:
|
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
008 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Guideline 2 - Test Assertions | |||||
Title: Test Assertions | |||||
Description: Despite overlap with specGL,
we agreed that it's important to discuss assertions in Test GL. In specGL,
TA are considered as output, while in TestGL, they are input.
Reviewing the TA definition in specGL, it appears we also want to move
some of the verbiage of SpecGL GL10 to the definition in specGL glossary The assertions section of TestGL should point to the definition, address
why they are important, how they can be extracted/derived automatically Checkpoint 2.1: Rewrite checkpoint to: Provide a list of test assertions. Change to priority 1. Add some verbiage to the discussion to include examples of derived assertions. Checkpoint 2.2. The discussion for this checkpoint should include more detail including the possibility of extracting more than one assertion from the same quoted text. It is up to the test developer to decide the mechanism for assigning a unique assertion-ID. The metadata in this checkpoint should be tied with the metadata in checkpoint 3.2. Replace location for the text from which the assertion was derived. [PC] we've discussed assertions several times, and don't seem to be
able to agree on whether a specific assertion list is required, or whether |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
009 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Introduction - Class of Product | |||||
Title: Specify Class of Product | |||||
Description: We must specify the types of test materials to which these guidelines apply. | |||||
Proposal: Point to the class of product listed in SpecGl rather than duplicate the list here. [MS] points out that the COP for SpecGL is "specification", in particular W3C Technical Reports. [PC] We must be referring to Section 2.2.of SpecGL ("Specification category and class of product") where we do classify different types of spec. (Should that section header really include the term "class of product"?) |
|||||
Resolution: | |||||
010 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Definitions | |||||
Title: Need a definition of "testable". | |||||
Description: [PC] We had an extensive email thread on this. Did we ever resolve? | |||||
Proposal: [MS] and [PC] believe that
it's unnecessary to formally define this term. The intuitive understanding
most readers will have should suffice. |
|||||
Resolution: | |||||
011 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 1.1 - Define the test suite scope | |||||
Title: Move content from rationale to discussion | |||||
Description: Keep the rationale concise.
Move examples and other material to the discussion section. Remove the
example cited in the rationale and add the HTTP (client only, server only)
example provided by Alex Rousskov.
[PC] Alex will need to document this - we have no minutes. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
012 | Jan 04 | Editorial | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 1.2 - Identify the specifications to be tested | |||||
Title: Use the term "explicitly tests other specifications" in the rationale. | |||||
Description: | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
013 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 1.3 - Define a testing approach | |||||
Title: Define the term "testing approach" | |||||
Description: Define the term "testing approach" (refers to what kind of test is going to be developed) and provide examples (Validators, API testing, Protocol). Also, include partitioning as part of the discussion section. | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
014 | Jan 04 | Editorial | Closed | QAWG | Patrick Curran |
Section: Checkpoint 1.3 - Define a testing approach | |||||
Title: Re-word conformance requirement | |||||
Description: Rewrite the conformance requirement to: "A testing approach must be identified as a result of the specification analysis". | |||||
Proposal: Close. [PC and MS] believe that the propsed wording unduly constrains the testing approach. | |||||
Resolution: CLOSED - no action | |||||
015 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Guideline 3 - Define the process for managing test materials | |||||
Title: Guideline 3 addresses WG process rather than test materials | |||||
Description: Guidelines must address test materials, not WG processes. | |||||
Proposal: Change to "Support test material metadata". | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
016 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Closed | QAWG | Patrick Curran |
Section: Checkpoint 3.1 - Define the process for managing test materials | |||||
Title: Drop Checkpoint 3.1 (it addresses processes) | |||||
Description: See Issue 15 | |||||
Proposal: Drop this checkpoint | |||||
Resolution: DONE | |||||
017 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 3.2 - "Define the metadata to be associated with test materials | |||||
Title: Clarify Checkpoint 3.2 | |||||
Description: Include a statement clarifying
that test materials are not referring to testcases.
[PC] I don't understand this statement. Metadata is associated with testcases. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
018 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 3.2 - Define the metadata to be associated with test materials | |||||
Title: Move some of the requirements and discussions back to Checkpoint 2.2 - Tag assertions with essential metadata | |||||
Description: In the conformance requirement the third bullet should go back to assertions. The fifth bullet is too ambiguous, it must be clarified. In the discussion section:
[PC] see Issue #008 [MS] The distinction between tagging assertions with metadata and associating metadata with test materials is confusing to me. Since assertions ultimately result in test materials why do we need the metadata in two places? Wouldn’t it be simpler (and less confusing) if we just associated the metadata with either the assertions or the test materials, but not both? [PC] There may be many test-cases associated with a single (complex) assertion. Under these circumstances, attributes like "optional", or "specific to version x.y of the spec" belong with the assertion (so that they aren't duplicated). On the other hand, attributes like "input arguments/data for test" and "expected results of test" clearly must be associated with tests. Continue to discuss this in the context of our ongoing discussion of assertions. |
|||||
Proposal: |
|||||
Resolution: | |||||
019 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 3.3 - Provide coverage information | |||||
Title: Modify conformance requirement of Checkpoint 3.3 | |||||
Description: Modify conformance requirement
to require publishing the list to publish the list as well as the percentage.
[PC] The assertion list? This is covered elsewhere. [MS] This requirement should also be modified to say “at a minimum
. . . “must” be, rather than “should”. Since
this is a minimum list, it’s an absolute requirement, thus “must”. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
020 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Closed | QAWG | Patrick Curran |
Section: Checkpoint 3.4 - Provide an issue-tracking system | |||||
Title: Drop Checkpoint 3.4 | |||||
Description: This addresses process - inappropriate for TestGL. [PC] have we captured this "good practice" somewhere in OpsGL? |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: DONE | |||||
021 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 3.5 - Automate the test materials management process | |||||
Title: Checkpoint 3.5 inappropriately addresses process | |||||
Description: Once again, we're talking
about process (belongs in OpsGL, not here). Reword to focus on metadata
and on mechanisms for filtering, sorting, manipulating it. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
022 | Jan 04 | Editorial | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 4.1 - Define the test execution process | |||||
Title: Suggested change for conformance requirement of Checkpoint 4.1 | |||||
Description: Rewrite conformance requirement
to: "The process for executing tests must be well defined and must
document how to execute the test".
[PC] how is this better than what we currently have ("The process for executing tests must be well defined and documented")? Note also that "well defined" is untestable. The essence of this checkpoint is: "tell me how to execute the tests. Do so unambiguously, so that if someone else follows your instructions they will get the same results as I do". (See Issue #023.) |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
023 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Guideline 4 0 - Define the process for executing tests | |||||
Title: Add a checkpoint requiring that test results be reproducible and repeatable | |||||
Description: In discussion we realized
that the only testable requirement would be to require specification of
whether test (results) are reproducible and repeatible. This is pretty
weak, but what else is testable?
Alternate suggestion (preferred after discussion): materials must document
where test results are not expected to be reproducible and repeatable,
and to explain why. If this info is specific to a particular test (as
opposed to a group of tests or even the entire test suite) it should
be contained in the test Include in the rationale discussion of the order in which tests must be run (if indeed order is important). We must also ensure that every test that should be run is run, and that those that should be excluded from the test run are excluded. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
024 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: QAWG Glossary (and/or Definitions section of this doc?) | |||||
Title: Define "reproducible" and "repeatable" | |||||
Description: Meeting minutes said define in "glossary". Also in definitions section? |
|||||
Proposal: Definitions from [LR]: The real definitions are from ISO 5725-1:1994/Technical Corrigendum 1, Published 1998-02-15, "Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results Part 1: General principles and definitions" and ISO 5725-2:1994, "Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results Part 2: Basic method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method." "3.13 repeatability: Precision under repeatability conditions. 3.14 repeatability conditions: Conditions where independent test results are obtained with the same method on identical test items in the same laboratory by the same operator using the same equipment within short intervals of time. 3.17 reproducibility: Precision under reproducibility conditions. 3.18 reproducibility conditions: Conditions where test results are
obtained with the same method on identical test items in different laboratories
with different operators using different equipment." |
|||||
Resolution: | |||||
025 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Closed | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Guideline 4 0 - Define the process for executing tests | |||||
Title: Add a checkpoint requiring that test results be reproducible and repeatable | |||||
Description: Rolled into issue #023 | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
026 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: | |||||
Title: | |||||
Description: Checkpoint 4.2 ("Automate
the test execution process"). Essential requirements are: 1) test
execution must be automated, 2) automation must be platform-independent. Not always necessary or possible to provide cross-platform framework. Platform-independence should be removed from requirements and instead stated as a goal in discussion. [PC] what's the difference between "platform-independent" and "cross-platform"? (Are we really trying to say "don't write to a particular platform, but don't feel obliged to write for all platforms"?) |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
027 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 4.3 - Integrate results reporting into the automated test execution process | |||||
Title: Do not mandate use of any supplied test harness | |||||
Description: 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.
[PC] I'm not sure what the last two sentences mean. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
028 | Jan 04 | Editorial | Unassigned | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 5.1 - Review the test materials | |||||
Title: Suggested wording for description of Checkpoint 5.1 | |||||
Description: Ideally, this means
that the WG (or whatever body will in the end endorse the use of the
test suite) approves the tests in the test suite [PC] Once again, we're straying into OpsGL territory by addressing process. Can we sidestep this by requiring that test metadata include the results of reviewing? [MS] agrees. [DD] Agreed, and I propose to reword to "make tests reviewable" (implies coming up with a scheme for reviewing, which is not process, but tech details. [PC] Still sounds like process to me. We must focus on the output (results of review) and not on how that output is produced (the "scheme for reviewing"). |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
029 | Jan 04 | Editorial | Closed | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 5.1 - Review the test materials | |||||
Title: Suggested wording for description of Checkpoint 5.1 | |||||
Description: Rolled into issue #28 | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
030 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 5.3 - Package the test materials into a test suite | |||||
Title: Clarify components of test suite | |||||
Description: Need to spell out the parts that make up a test suite, as well as what parts are optional. Also need defintions of the terms used (for example "test harness", "test case"). [MS] This sounds like process to me. I’m not sure it should be a ckpt. [DD] I think this is as much process as providing test materials to begin with, that is, not much. Packaging is maybe an unsuccessfully picked word, but it boils down to someone having to delimit relevant tests (used to test conformance) from irrelevant ones. [PC] It's easy to reword the checkpoint to focus on the output (the
package) rather than the process (the packaging). The essence of the
checkpoint is that a website containing a bunch of links, some of which
point to tests, other to docs, others to 'metadata' does not constitute
a test suite. Until everything is packaged together test execution runs
are unlikely to be reproducible and repeatable. (See also new issue
049 below.) |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
031 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 5.4 - Test the test suite | |||||
Title: Suggested description for Checkpoint 5.4 - Test the test suite | |||||
Description: This needs to be either stressed as either the final proof that this is the real thing (being endorsed by the WG or similar body) or alternatively as one more step in making sure the test suite is designed to be of as high quality as possible (without making reference to it being officially approved). [PC] Again, this checkpoint addresses process (the WG's activities) rather than the test materials. Require that a test plan (and/or test results) be published along with the test suite? [MS] Also, as this ckpt now stands, it cannot be tested. (How ironic for a ckpt to test the test suite). The ckpt should require a test plan and test results, as PC suggests. [DD] Again, Ops since it requires something from the WG, but essential in order to be able to use the test materials for conformance. Include it in the workflow of providing test materials for it to be testable (as a checkpoint). I stress the need for it to be clearly delimited as it is THE activity (I think) that discriminates"officially accepted" test materials from non-accepted ones. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
032 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 5.4 - Test the test suite | |||||
Title: Should have separate checkpoints for test materials and test suite | |||||
Description: I still think we should
have two separate checkpoints for test materials and test suite, respectively,
as these are two separate things and quite [PC] Two separate checkpoints for doing what? Testing the test materials and the test suite? |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
033 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 5.5 - Solicit feedback on the test materials | |||||
Title: Describe how feedback on test materials could be provided | |||||
Description: Describe the possible
ways in which feedback is given: mailing list for example requires readers
that can act on it. Emphasize that feedback should be acted upon. [PC] Another process-related checkpoint. Relatively easy to reword as a requirement to define and publish a feedback mechanism. [MS] The important point is not to describe ways feedback can be given, but to obtain feedback, somehow, some way. The feedback mechanism is not important, just the results. Can we just require that feedback solicitation and feedback results be published? [DD] agrees |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
034 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Guideline 6 - Define the process for reporting test results | |||||
Title: Request clarification of Guideline 6 | |||||
Description: Are we here speaking of the automated result reporting in the test suite, or of something separate? Since we indicate automation in the second paragraph of the introduction, we may want to specify that. [MS] Again, this is a process requirement. Does it belong here? [PC] Shouldn't have used the "process" word. The blurb under the guideline and the discussion text for checkpoints 6.1 and 6.2 make it clear that we're talking about the mechanisms that the tests use to report their results to the person executing them. If this isn't done in a clear, consistent, and understandable manner it will not be possible to accurately determine which tests have passed and which tests have failed, once again defeating the goal that test runs be reproducible and repeatable. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
035 | Jan 04 | Editorial | Unassigned | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 6.2 - Tests should report diagnostic information | |||||
Title: Suggested wording change for Checkpoint 6.2 | |||||
Description: Provide diagnostic information
where applicable (some implementations may not, for example, implement
error reporting). |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
036 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 6.3 - Define and document the process for reporting test results | |||||
Title: Comment on Checkpoint 6.3 | |||||
Description: Again, if automated,
this relates more to the technical issues about the framework than the
process as such (we want to allow for different [PC] whether or not we have automation we must still define and document a process for reporting results. [MS] Again, this is process. [PC] We can get around this in the same way as with 'review the test results' or 'gather feedback'. Focus on the output and not the process. [DD, commenting earlier, but really addressing this point] Propose
to change wording to "in the absence of existing mechanisms for
reporting test results, create one and package together with test suite"
|
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
037 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 6.4 - Allow test results to be filtered | |||||
Title: Clarify wording of test results filtering in Checkpoint 3.4 | |||||
Description: Perhaps we should change wording to indicate that filtering be made in accordance with specification modules, for example. I agree that filtering is more relevant in building or execution phases than after having been run. | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
038 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 6.5 - Automate the results reporting system | |||||
Title: Suggested consolidation of discussion of results reporting | |||||
Description: If we stress automation of results reporting, this should be discussed in one checkpoint (relates to issues #034 and #036 above). | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
039 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | Dimitris Dimitriadis | TBD |
Section: Appendices | |||||
Title: Need explicit appendices | |||||
Description: Need to be made explicit. | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
040 | Jan 04 | Editorial | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 5.1 - Review the test materials | |||||
Title: Wording changes for Checkpoint 5.1 | |||||
Description: 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. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
041 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 5.2 - Document the test materials | |||||
Title: Checkpoint 5.2 is redundant | |||||
Description: [PC] Why? |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
042 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 5.3- Package the test materials into a test suite | |||||
Title: Checkpoint 5.3 is not testable | |||||
Description: 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. (These
terms should be defined.) |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
043 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 5.4 - Test the test suite | |||||
Title: Suggested clarification of objects of TestGL | |||||
Description: Management system is the object. David Marston to help define the 2 objects of TestGL. In discussion, include the frequency of applying the test plan and testing. [PC] ??? |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
044 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 6.1 - Tests should report their status in a consistent manner | |||||
Title: Clarify meanings of test-result states | |||||
Description: 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. [MS] This ckpt, and others in Guideline 6 use “should” in describing the ckpt. The “should” should (or must - I’m going insane) be changed to “must”. Checkpoints should not leave any wiggle room. A better way to describe the ckpt is with an active verb (e.g., Report test status, Report diagnostic info.) |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
045 | Jan 04 | Editorial | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Section 6.2 - Tests should report diagnostic information | |||||
Title: Simplify conformance requirement for checkpoint 6.2 | |||||
Description: Simply "must provide diagnostic information". Rmainder of sentence is rationale. | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
046 | Jan 04 | Editorial | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 6.3 - Define and document the process for reporting test results | |||||
Title: Checkpoint 6.3 already exists in OpsGL | |||||
Description: Rewrite as "Define an interface to allow publishing of results". | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
047 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint - 6.4 Allow test results to be filtered | |||||
Title: Reword checkpoint 6.4 | |||||
Description: "Have a results management system" | |||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
048 | Jan 04 | Substantive | Unassigned | QAWG | TBD |
Section: Checkpoint 6.5 - Automate the results reporting system | |||||
Title: Reword checkpoint 6.5 | |||||
Description: "automate the system" [PC] ??? |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: | |||||
049 | Feb 5, 2004 | Substantive | Unassigned | Patrick Curran | TBD |
Section: Guideline 3 | |||||
Title: Need a new checkpoint: releases of test suites must be versioned | |||||
Description: Test suites must be explicitly released (rather than "dribbled out" by constantly updating a website), and must be versioned. If they're not, test runs cannot be deterministic or repeatable and the results of different test runs cannot be compared. |
|||||
Proposal: | |||||
Resolution: |