Re: OpsGL QA-commitment-group

At 09:56 AM 5/9/2003 -0400, Mark Skall wrote:

>At 12:17 AM 5/8/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
>>At 08:54 AM 5/7/2003 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 7 May 2003, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>> > CP1.3: Commit to complete test materials. [Priority 3] Conformance
>>> > Requirements: the WG MUST commit to produce or adopt a complete Test
>>> > Materials before Recommendation, where complete is defined as: at
>>> > least one test case for every identifiable conformance requirement
>>> > of the specification.
>>>
>>>I apologize if I missed the discussion about it, but not all
>>>"identifiable conformance requirements" are testable and, hence, can
>>>have at least one test case. Should "testable" qualifier be added?
>>
>>I don't have a problem adding such a qualifier.  Objections anyone?
>
>I object.  The reason is that I don't accept Alex's premise.  Every 
>requirement should (MUST) be testable.

To clarify, are you saying:

1.) that "testable" is part of the our definition of conformance 
requirement (or should be), and therefore this is inherently redundant?

2.) or, that we should have (e.g., in SpecGL) a requirement (i.e., 
checkpoint) that every conformance requirement in a target spec must be 
testable?

Note.  "Conformance requirement" is not in QA-glossary, nor in SpecGL "4. 
Definitions".

Note2.  I recall a while back that we discussed the difference between 
conformance requirement and test assertion in telecon, and someone 
(Andrew?) drew a distinction that we liked, and Mark did an AI to take a 
sample GL and show what its *test assertions* would look like, as opposed 
to its conformance requirements.

>(In fact, I thought this statement was included somewhere in our guidelines)

Not yet.  Or if we have addressed it, I can't remember where it is, off the 
top of my head.  We have talked a lot about "test assertions", but little 
about "requirements".

There is a SpecGL issue group about TA-req.  As I recall, at least one LC 
commenter noted in passing the lack of definition of "conformance 
requirement".  (Or maybe I did -- but if you look at the issue group, then 
you'll see that we need to agree about it before resolving the questions 
about test assertions.)

>  If  a requirement is not testable, it should be reworded to be testable 
> or be eliminated from the specification.  If it can't be tested, it can't 
> be verified that it was done correctly and is, thus, of no use.  Adding 
> the suggested qualifier would sanction having non-testable requirements.

Since there is dissent on this, I would propose that we close it in the 
OpsGL context for now, *without* the suggested change.

We will sort it out with the SpecGL TA-req issues group, and if that 
implies any adjustment to OpsGL is appropriate, then we will do it.  (I'll 
link this thread from that issue group, to make sure we don't overlook 
it.  So ... continue ...)

Okay?

-Lofton.

Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 10:52:38 UTC