From cornu@inf.enst.fr Tue Mar 2 13:56:33 1993 Received: from enst.enst.fr by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA25314 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Tue, 2 Mar 1993 12:56:45 +0100 Received: from ulysse.enst.fr (inf.enst.fr) by enst.enst.fr (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA12520; Tue, 2 Mar 93 12:56:45 +0100 Return-Path: Organization: Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications, Paris Received: from cyclope.enst.fr by ulysse.enst.fr (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA12872; Tue, 2 Mar 93 12:56:55 +0100 From: Jean Michel Cornu Message-Id: <9303021156.AA12872@ulysse.enst.fr> Subject: french ballot on CD13210 To: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 12:56:33 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2799 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Following is the french comment on the CD13210 Ballot. Sorry to send it so late, it took a "committee time" to draft the final version. Jean-Michel ------------ cut here --------------------- Forwarded message: > > Following are the AFNOR comments for ISO/IEC CD 13210, March 21 1991. > These are only few comments. The AFNOR group rejects this document to be a ISO/CD because the group feels that it is not sufficiently well-defined. > > > 1- SECTION 4 : Testing levels and Complexity levels > > 4.2.2 Thorough testing > The given example that defines thorough testing seems to be unsufficient to undoubtly classify this level of testing. We think that this level of testing needs to be analysed in depth. This analysis could help the improvement of test assertion definitions> .. > For example, the thorough testing of a real time feature such as the schedulability of a process, given its scheduler parameters, in a set of processes having other parameters, involves analysis of semantic behaviors and not only the return of a given com> mand. A thorough testing of such a required feature should propose a scenario for the test. A taxonomy of thorough tests could be defined. > > 4.4 Conclusion > Of course, it is not the scope of this standard to define the recommended testing level of a PCTS, but this standard should impose to a PCTS implementor to document the choices he made. The a > bove taxonomy could be a help for such a documentation. > > Replace last sentence line 89-90 by: > It is not within the scope of this standard to define the recommended testing level of the PCTS > but the implementor shall precisely document the choices he made. > > As a matter of fact, the means to qualify a PCTS among others seems to be an axe of development of this standard. > > > 2- SECTION 6 : Writing Assertions > > AFNOR group thinks preferable to write example assertions based on Std P1003.1 and not on meteorology behavior. > 6.2.1.3.3 - This example is ambiguous because: > - it is a "atext" and then the word "when" is not a keyword, > or > - it is not a "atext" and then the keyword "then" is missing. > > > 3- ANNEX A.1.2 > > C language standard is not present ! > > > 4- IS 9646 > > > -- +------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Address: | Email: | | Jean-Michel Cornu Consultant | Jean-Michel.Cornu@afuu.fr | | 69 rue de Seine 91130 Ris Orangis | Jean-Michel.Cornu@enst.fr | | FRANCE | | +------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Tel: +33(1)69.43.48.47 | Fax: +33(1)69.06.83.16 | +------------------------------------+------------------------------+