2008/7/26 <>:
> Probably worth being explicit about what we mean by "doing tests". One
> way in which it could be done would comprise at least the following steps:
We again? Oasis? IBM? Not sure whose definition of testing you're using
I really do wonder where these definitions come from. Provision?
The action of providing; seeing to things beforehand;
preparing, or arranging in advance; the fact or condition of being prepared
or made ready beforehand.
What the heck has that to do with testing.
<snip/>
> 4) The creation of ODF instance documents which correspond to each of the
> test assertions, along with an image or descriptive text that would tell
> how that document should render in a conformant ODF applications. So, we
> would have an ODF test document which has the legal value of 3, and
> another ODF document with the illegal value of 6. Each document would
> have a file name corresponding to its test assertion ID.
Which is likely to cover around 55% of the standard.
The rest?
>
> 5) The creation of a document which enumerates all of the test assertions,
> categorized functionally, along with a statement of what preconditions are
> necessary to perform each test, what the expected results are, which test
> files are needed for each test, and how the results are to be reported.
Is this the program you said we shouldn't write? The 'glue'?
I think your understanding of testing is quite deeply flawed Rob.
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
