Test Information Interchange Formal Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Test Information Interchange Formal — Open Issues

  • Acronym: TestIF
  • Issues Count: 27
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Descriptions

trivia

  • Key: TR-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18360
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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"
  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 3.1

  • Key: TR-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18356
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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
  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

extending the standard is not clear

  • Key: TR-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18350
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Mapping to PSM not clear

  • Key: TR-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18351
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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?

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

TesIF SAL PSM.xsl

  • Key: TR-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18354
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Is 50 mandatory?

  • Key: TR-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18353
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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 ?

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 2.4.3 normative?

  • Key: TR-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18352
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    Section 2.4.3: say that this section is non-normative

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Ref to MIME stds

  • Key: TR-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18349
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

type of the Definition

  • Key: TR-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18347
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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)?

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 2.3.56

  • Key: TR-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18346
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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
  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Attribute Definition needs to be Identifiable

  • Key: TR-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18344
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

not clear what is expected in page 66

  • Key: TR-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18345
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

" an attribute column within RE/RM tool"

  • Key: TR-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18343
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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?

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Empty class

  • Key: TR-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18342
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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?

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

“the” document

  • Key: TR-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18341
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

SUT?

  • Key: TR-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18338
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    Figure 2-3: SUT is not a TestIF wording

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Parsing error in text

  • Key: TR-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18340
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

no ads (Ctn.)

  • Key: TR-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18337
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

C4I systems

  • Key: TR-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18335
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Introduce the extensibility earlier

  • Key: TR-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18336
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    the extensibility needs to be introduced here

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Cause-effect model

  • Key: TR-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18333
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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
  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

no ads

  • Key: TR-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18332
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

See the UTP Model

  • Key: TR-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18334
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

balloons are not expect results

  • Key: TR-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18331
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section 1.8 - last sub-bullet

  • Key: TR-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18329
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

file not introduced in the text and needing to be

  • Key: TR-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18326
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Symbols are not mandatory

  • Key: TR-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18330
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    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).

  • Reported: TestIF 1.0b1 — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT