Issues for Mailing list of the TestIF 1.0 Finalization Task Force

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 18326: file not introduced in the text and needing to be
Issue 18327: fields/attributes are not specified enough
Issue 18328: Check the XML files
Issue 18329: Section 1.8 - last sub-bullet
Issue 18330: Symbols are not mandatory
Issue 18331: balloons are not expect results
Issue 18332: no ads
Issue 18333: Cause-effect model
Issue 18334: See the UTP Model
Issue 18335: C4I systems
Issue 18336: Introduce the extensibility earlier
Issue 18337: no ads (Ctn.)
Issue 18338: SUT?
Issue 18339: Section 2.2
Issue 18340: Parsing error in text
Issue 18341: “the” document
Issue 18342: Empty class
Issue 18343: " an attribute column within RE/RM tool"
Issue 18344: Attribute Definition needs to be Identifiable
Issue 18345: not clear what is expected in page 66
Issue 18346: Section 2.3.56
Issue 18347: type of the Definition
Issue 18348: type of the Definition (Ctn)
Issue 18349: Ref to MIME stds
Issue 18350: extending the standard is not clear
Issue 18351: Mapping to PSM not clear
Issue 18352: Section 2.4.3 normative?
Issue 18353: Is 50 mandatory?
Issue 18354: TesIF SAL PSM.xsl
Issue 18355: poor quality of image
Issue 18356: Section 3.1
Issue 18357: Inventory file
Issue 18358: c4i/12-09-06
Issue 18359: wrong XML files
Issue 18360: trivia

Issue 18326: file not introduced in the text and needing to be (testif-ftf)

One file is not introduced in the text and need to be: the xml file holding the default normative attribute. For instance, in the 2.3.57.

Most of classes and fields/attributes are not specified enough: too often, they are even not described at all. All fields deserve a clear and sensible description

Please, CHECK you xml files wrt XML rules AND wrt their XSD with a tool

Section 1.8 - last sub-bullet of the Interchange bullet: I don't understand this sentence

Please clearly specify that the symbols you are introducing for the example are just there for the sake of explanation and that you don't intend to standardize a graphical notation (this is not a UML profile).

Page 17 - Figure 1-1: The "requirement R1" and "Requirement R2" balloons use the notation for "expected result" while they are not expected results

please avoid to advertise too heavily enterprises’ work particularly when they are not members of the OMG

Cause-effect model:

                - please add a legend for this graphical language

                - say this is not normative (as in page 16)

                - state that this spec provisions or not such for the interchange of such model

line "Test Model" - column "UTP Term": what does mean "See the UTP Model" ?

first paragraph: "Test processes for software systems" -> for C4I systems

the extensibility needs to be introduced here

Figure 2-1: avoid to advertise too heavily enterprises’ work

Figure 2-3: SUT is not a TestIF wording

Section 2.2:

                - 1st paragraph: "if they match" -> "if they fully match" ?

                - the five first bullets should be allocated in the correct sections of the PIM

                - The last bullet reads strange after the introduction: does an implementation need to implement everything or just a part? Clarify.

Page 37 - first paragraph (a bullet): "package that Test Specific classesPackage TestIF" can’t be parsed

Section 2.3.4.1.4: The 1st paragraph speaks twice about "the" document: which document?

Section 2.3.8: this class doesn't hold anything!? What could be the interest of such a class? Moreover, what is the point of this when there is a capability of extension in this spec?

 

Section 2.3.13: 1st paragraph: "an attribute column within RE/RM tool": I don't understand, please explain, what's RE/RM? what's attribute column?

Section 2.3.13: the class Attribute Definition does need to be Identifiable (Base Classifier = Identifiable)

Page 66 - last paragraph: "it is expected that … implementations." This sentence is not clear; is it or not mandatory to follow these rules?

Section 2.3.56:

                - is this section normative ?

                - 3rd paragraph - eighth line: "attribute contains" -> "attribute definition contains"

                - last paragraph: I believe that the OMG could gather all these AttributeDefinitions on its website

Page 85 - third paragraph: "the reqs for each of the AttributeDefinition's fields are below:…" what about the type of the Definition (i.e. the subclass of AttributeDefinition it belongs to)?

Section 2.3.57 - Table 2-2: the type (composite…) is lacking

Page 88 - fifth line (MIME): please reference the IETF standards: RFC 2045, RFC 2046, RFC 2047, RFC 4288, RFC 4289 and RFC 2049

Section 2.3.58: is it a way to extend the standard? if yes, this is not clear in the "extending the standard" part

Page 93: penultimate paragraph ("The TesIFToolExtensionType exists…"): this paragraph is not clear. in which cases there are items that could not be handled with the standard attributes?

Section 2.4.3: say that this section is non-normative

Section 2.5 - third paragraph: "In this PSM… (50)… instance": this is not clear what is mandatory. Is 50 mandatory or is it a number which is implementation-dependent ?

Section 2.5.2 - last paragraph thereof: I could find the file named "TesIF SAL PSM.xsl". Next, why is it a .xsl file?

Page 109 - Figure 2-66 & Page 110 - Figure 2-67: poor quality of the image

Section 3.1:

                - First line -> "No change to any OMG specifications is required"

                - section 3.1.1 onwards: this is not about change of adopted OMG specification but about relationship with other standards. please move this elsewhere (cf before)

                - section 3.1.6: MARTES -> MARTE

- the document number is wrong: it should 11-01 instead of 09-12

- Additional documents: aren't these documents machine consumable files?

- Where is the PSM for SQL file ?

 

c4i/12-09-06

- this file should hold only the xml and be an XML file since the text is copy/paste of the specification text

- the XSD should be referenced in the XML header

- the XSD should be referenced in the XML header

- A lot of XML errors: line 33, 44, 54, 241 (& -> &amp;), 257, 282, 372, 379, 406 and 415 (< and > are not XML characters), 425 and so one

c4i/12-09-09

- a lot of XML errors: lines 48, 289, 244,345, 346, 347, 348, 98 and so one… use a tool!

c4i/12-09-11

- again, this not a valid XML file

- again add the reference to the XSD to check the validity of the XML file wrt to the chema

- again, use a tool

Page 18 - First bullet: "the second failed due to a observing an incorrect value": I can't parse.

- Page 18 - Third bullet: was determined by A second …"

- Page 30 - "shows the conceptual relationship between the types " -> … among the types…

- Page 32 - Third bullet: between -> among

- Page 34 - first line: between -> among

- Page 68 - last sentence: "genrally" -> "generally"