Re: OpsGL QA-commitment-group

At 01:27 PM 5/9/2003 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:


>Now, let's see if you can give an example of a UNtestable requirement.
>I bet I will be able to use your own logic to show that that
>requirement is testable.


Actually, I like your example.  The requirement that all requirements MUST 
be testable is untestable.  One cannot write a test suite without knowing 
the exact requirement.


> > So vendors will say they conform but we can't determine if they're
> > telling the truth?
>
>Yes. That's the informal world we leave in. It is impractical to
>change that, even in the virtual world, unless all specs and all
>implementations are based on some formal verifiable model.
>
>If you disagree, you have to prove, among many other things, that your
>test tool is _always_ correct. What if your test tool is lying? Why
>should I trust the vendor less than you?



Because the vendor is biased (This is not necessarily a bad thing - it's 
their business to promote their product).  The ones who designed the test 
are neutral (or at least they should be).



>Are we going to talk about
>vendor incentives to lie versus test lab incentives to lie? Is it
>above motive?


Yes.


> > Again, it may be possible to implement correctly, but it still is
> > impossible to know if it has been.
>
>True, but we have to live with that uncertainty. It is not possible to
>eliminate it unless we formalize the entire virtual environment. See
>above.
>
> > Again, we can usually come up with some test, no matter how
> > inefficient.
>
>The "no matter how inefficient" part makes all requirements testable.
>Does it not?



No.  See my example above.  However, it makes the very large majority 
testable.  That's why it's so appalling when a requirement is 
untestable.  With a little bit of work, I believe, it could be made 
testable.  We've just agreed how easy that is.



> > Since compliance is the ultimate goal, every requirement needs to be
> > testable to ensure compliance.
>
>Compliance is the ultimate goal. Being able to ensure (test for)
>compliance is not the ultimate goal; it is only a highly desirable
>feature (i.e., a SHOULD).
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alex.

****************************************************************
Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
****************************************************************

Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 17:45:33 UTC