geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Snyder <fer...@frii.com>
Subject Re: [Testing] Testing
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:02:53 GMT
This one time, at band camp, Alex Blewitt said:

AB>> @spec
AB>>     name="J2EE"
AB>>     version="1.4"
AB>>     chapter-name="Transaction Management"
AB>>     chapter-number="4"
AB>>     chapter-section-name="Transactional JDBC Technology Support"
AB>>     chapter-section-number="4.2.7"
AB>
AB>Can you tie spec tests down to a specific page/chapter, though? I'm 
AB>sure that the relationship isn't 1-1. For example, a spec requirement 
AB>may come out of several places in the document; at the very least, on 
AB>different pages. Further, there may be some spec tests which cover many 
AB>different types of element, or that go into more detail than the spec 
AB>document allows (such as CMP mapping, which isn't covered by the spec 
AB>at all).

Point taken and I agree. A page-number attribute sounds like a good idea
to me.

AB>I'm also pretty sure that the -name and -number are storing duplicate 
AB>information; you'd really only need the -number ones, and provide a 
AB>lookup file elsewhere. In fact, given that the section stores 
AB>chapter-and-section number, you'd really only need that :-)

I agree that it's duplicate info. One reason is to make the tests as
self-contained as possible. This makes report generation easier because
there is no dependency on an external, separately maintained resource.
Maybe it is too much data and isn't necessary? Maybe the following is
more reasonable:

@spec
    name="J2EE"
    version="1.4"
    chapter-name="Transaction Management"
    section-name="Transactional JDBC Technology Support"
    section-number="4.2.7"
    page-number="64"

AB>> Feedback? Better ideas?
AB>
AB>Another approach would be to plan the tests on the Wiki first, and then 
AB>write the tests themselves, rather than the spec tests being self 
AB>documenting. The former approach will let you build a complete list of 
AB>tests first; however, if you rely on the individual tests saying that 
AB>'section 4.2.7' is tested, then that can lull you into a false sense of 
AB>security; yes, /one/ of the tests in 4.2.7 may be covered, but that 
AB>doesn't mean that /all/ of them will be.

I agree that there needs to be a measuring stick of sorts for determining
how much further we need to go. But the idea is that the inclusion of the
section-number adds the ability to view a report and easily see gaps in
the section numbers. I'll be honest that I don't care to volunteer for
going through each spec and making a list of the tests. Maybe someone
else is interested in performing this task.

I'm not trying to defend my idea and force it down everyone's throats. I'm
simply trying to better explain my reasoning. I'm very open to suggestions
or complete changes.

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","<0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F9E<G)E=\$\!F<FEI+F-O;0\`\`");'



Mime
View raw message