This document was last revised or approved by the OASIS Test Assertions Guidelines (TAG) TC on the above date. The level of approval is also listed above. Check the “Latest version” location noted above for possible later revisions of this document.

Technical Committee members should send comments on this specification to the Technical Committee’s email list. Others should send comments to the Technical Committee by using the “Send A Comment” button on the Technical Committee’s web page at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tag/.

Citation format:

When referencing this Work Product the following citation format should be used:

[TestAssertionsGuidelines]

Test Assertions Guidelines Version 1.0. 23 March 2012. OASIS Committee Note 01. http://docs.oasis-open.org/tag/guidelines/v1.0/cn01/guidelines-v1.0-cn01.html.

All capitalized terms in the following text have the meanings assigned to them in the OASIS Intellectual Property Rights Policy (the "OASIS IPR Policy"). The full Policy may be found at the OASIS website.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this section are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, including by removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS, except as needed for the purpose of developing any document or deliverable produced by an OASIS Technical Committee (in which case the rules applicable to copyrights, as set forth in the OASIS IPR Policy, must be followed) or as required to translate it into languages other than English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by OASIS or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and OASIS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 References....................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 About this Document........................................................................................................ 6

1.3 Intended Audience........................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Scope................................................................................................................................ 6

2 Rationale............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Benefits of test Assertions................................................................................................. 7

2.2 What is a Test Assertion?................................................................................................... 8

2.3 A Note on Testability......................................................................................................... 9

3 Overview of the Test Assertion Model................................................................................ 10

3.1 The Structure of a Test Assertion..................................................................................... 10

3.1.1 Core Test Assertion Parts....................................................................................... 10

3.1.2 Optional Test Assertion Parts................................................................................. 11

3.1.3 General Semantics of a Test Assertion.................................................................... 12

3.1.4 Test Assertion Notation used in the Examples........................................................ 12

3.2 Best Practices.................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.1 Granularity of Test Assertions................................................................................ 14

3.2.2 Implicit Test Assertion Parts................................................................................... 14

3.2.3 Handling Optional Statements................................................................................ 15

4 Advanced Features............................................................................................................ 17

4.1 Complex Predicates......................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Prerequisites................................................................................................................... 18

4.3 Test Assertions for Properties.......................................................................................... 19

4.4 Prerequisites Referring to Other Test Assertions.............................................................. 20

4.5 Various Normative Sources.............................................................................................. 21

4.6 Test Assertion Grouping.................................................................................................. 22

4.6.1 Lists...................................................................................................................... 22

4.6.2 Tags...................................................................................................................... 23

4.7 The Case of Multiple Specifications.................................................................................. 24

4.8 Conformance Statements................................................................................................ 26

4.9 Specification Versions...................................................................................................... 27

4.10 Variables....................................................................................................................... 28

4.11 Target Categories........................................................................................................... 29

5 Worked Example................................................................................................................ 32

5.1 Example Specification...................................................................................................... 32

5.2 Test Assertions................................................................................................................ 33

5.2.1 Test Assertions for Examples (Sections 100 to 104)................................................. 33

5.2.2 Variable Scope for Localizations of Widget Sizes...................................................... 34

5.3 Test Assertions Markup................................................................................................... 34

6 Glossary............................................................................................................................. 37

Appendix A Acknowledgments...................................................................................... 38

Appendix C Revision History........................................................................................... 41

1 Introduction

This document is a non-normative guidelines document that provides best practices in using the test assertions model defined in [TAM], as well as the test assertions XML mark-up language [TAML]. However, this document alone is sufficient for the most common test assertion design so that the reader does not need to be familiar with the above mentioned Test Assertion model and mark-up specifications. These referred specifications are only necessary for a deeper understanding of test assertion semantics or when using a formal representation of test assertions.

1.1 References

[TAM] Test Assertions Part 1 - Test Assertions Model Version 1.0. 30 November 2011. OASIS Committee Specification 02. http://docs.oasis-open.org/tag/model/v1.0/cs02/testassertionsmodel-1.0-cs02.html.

[TAML] Test Assertions Part 2 - Test Assertion Markup Language Version 1.0. 30 November 2011. OASIS Committee Specification 02. http://docs.oasis-open.org/tag/taml/v1.0/cs02/testassertionmarkuplanguage-1.0-cs02.html.

[ISO/IEC Directives] ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards, 2004, International Organization for Standardization.

[RFC 2119] S. Bradner. Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. March 1997, IETF RFC 2119. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt.

[CONF1] Conformance Requirements for Specifications v1.0, March 2002, OASIS Committee Specification 01. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/305/conformance_requirements-v1.pdf

[CONF2] Conformance testing and Certification Framework, June 2001, OASIS white paper. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/309/testing_and_certification_framework.pdf

[CONFCLAUSE] Guidelines to Writing Conformance Clauses, September 2007, OASIS guideline.

http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html

[TD] Test Development FAQ, 2005, W3C WG note .

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/01/test-faq

[VAR] Variability in Specifications, 2005, W3C WG note.

see http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-spec-variability-20050831/

[TMD] Test Metadata, QA Interest Group note, September 2005, W3C.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-test-metadata-20050914/

1.2 About this Document

This document is a guide to test assertions and describes best practices in applying a general test assertion model defined in [[TAM]]. Its purpose is to help the reader understand what test assertions are, their benefits, and most importantly how they are created. As you will discover test assertions can be an important and useful tool in promoting the quality of specifications, test suites and implementations of specifications. You will learn that there are many ways to create test assertions.

By following the guidelines in this document you will learn how to develop well-defined test assertions that can have useful purposes and applications such as the starting point for a conformance test suite for a specification. Experiences in developing test assertions will be shared, along with lessons learned, helpful tricks and tools, hazards to avoid, and other knowledge that may be helpful in crafting test assertions.

Organization of the document:

Section 2 describes the rationale for test assertions

Section 3 describes basic design principles sufficient for simple cases of test assertions

Section 4 explains the advanced features related to test assertions

Section 5 provides a worked example culminating in a brief look at the use of test assertion 'markup'

Section 6 provides a glossary of important terms

Appendices provide a listing of related reading material.

1.3 Intended Audience

The primary audience for this document is the authors of specifications and the writers of test suites as these groups are most likely to be involved in writing or in understanding test assertions.

1.4 Scope

These guidelines are intended to apply to any technology or business field. However, some parts of the "Advanced Features" section take their inspiration from software engineering. The examples describe an arbitrary mechanical device in order to ensure a general understanding of the concepts, whatever the background of the reader. This document is limited to the essentials of test assertions.

2 Rationale

2.1 Benefits of test Assertions

Improving the Specification

Test assertions may help provide a tighter specification: Any ambiguities, gaps, contradictions and statements which require excessive or impractical resources for testing can be noted as they become apparent during test assertion creation. If there is still an opportunity to correct or improve the specification, these notes can be the basis of comments to the specification authors. If not developed by the specification authors, test assertions should be reviewed and approved by them which will improve both the quality and time-to-deployment of the specification. Therefore, best results are achieved when assertions are developed in parallel with the specification. An alternative is to have the leader of the team that is writing test suites write the test assertions as well and to provide feedback to the specification authors.

Figure 1 illustrates two ways test assertions are being developed. In the first case, test assertions are developed by specification authors concurrently with the target specification. In the second case, they are developed by another party after the specification is complete.

Facilitating Testing

Test assertions provide a starting point for writing a conformance test suite or an interoperability test suite for a specification that can be used during implementation. They simplify the distribution of the test development effort between different organizations while maintaining consistent test quality. By tying test output to specification statements, test assertions improve confidence in the resulting test and provide a basis for coverage analysis (estimating the extent to which the specification is tested).

Aligning Implementations

Test assertions provide explicit guidance for implementers of a specification, by stating more concretely and practically the conditions to fulfill in order to conform. Unlike test suites which can only be exercised once the implementation work is done, test assertions are usable early on during the implementation work.

2.2 What is a Test Assertion?

A test assertion is a testable or measurable expression for evaluating the adherence of an implementation (or part of it) to a normative statement in a specification.

A Test Assertion should not be confused with a Conformance Clause, nor with a Test Case. The specification will often have one or more conformance clauses [CONFCLAUSE] which define various ways to conform to a specification [[VAR]] . A set of test assertions may be associated with a conformance clause in order to define more precisely what conformance entails for a candidate implementation. Test assertions lie between the specification and any suite of tests to be conducted to determine conformance. Such a test suite is typically comprised of a set of test cases. These test cases are derived from test assertions that address the normative statements of the specification. Figure 2 illustrates how test assertions relate with the concepts of test suite and of specification.

The Glossary, Section 6, will clarify further these related concepts: 'Conformance Clause', 'Test Assertion', 'Test Case', 'Test Metadata'.

2.3 A Note on Testability

Judging whether the test assertion is testable may require some knowledge about testing capabilities and resource constraints. Sometimes there is little knowledge of what actual testing conditions will be. In such cases the prime objective of writing test assertions is to provide a better understanding of what is expected from implementations in order to fulfill the requirements. In other cases, the test assertions are designed to reflect a more precise knowledge of testing conditions. Such test assertions can more easily be used as a blueprint for test suites.

3 Overview of the Test Assertion Model

This section aims to cover the simpler aspects of test assertions. Some more complex aspects are covered later in Section 4. The model used here is formally defined in the specification OASIS TAG TC Test Assertions Part 1, Test Assertions Model [[TAM]].

3.1 The Structure of a Test Assertion

Figure 3 below shows the anatomy of a typical test assertion, and how its parts relate to the specification being addressed, as well as to the implementations under test. Some optional parts are not shown in the figure.

Some of the elements which comprise a test assertion are considered core while others are optional.

3.1.1 Core Test Assertion Parts

A test assertion – as defined in [[TAM]] - includes, implicitly or explicitly:

Identifier

A unique identifier of the test assertion. It facilitates the mapping of assertions to specification statements. It is recommended that the identifier be made universally unique.[1]

Normative Sources

These refer to the precise specification requirements or normative statements that the test assertion addresses.

Target

The target categorizes an implementation or a part of an implementation of the referred specification, that is the main object of the test assertion and of its Normative Sources.

Predicate

A predicate asserts, in the form of an expression, the feature (a behavior or a property) described in the specification statement(s) referred by the Normative Sources. If the predicate is an expression which evaluates to “true” over the test assertion target, this means that the target exhibits this feature. “False” means the target does not exhibit this feature.

3.1.2 Optional Test Assertion Parts

In addition, a test assertion may optionally include:

Description

An informal definition of the role of the test assertion, with some optional details on some of its parts. This description must not alter the general meaning of the test assertion and its parts. This description may be used to annotate the test assertion with any information useful to its understanding. It does not need to be an exhaustive description of the test assertion.

Prescription Level

A keyword that indicates how imperative it is that the Normative Statement referred to in the Normative Source, be met. See possible keyword values in the Glossary.

Prerequisite

A test assertion Prerequisite is a logical expression (similar to a Predicate) which further qualifies the Target for undergoing the core test (expressed by the Predicate) that addresses the Normative Statement. It may include references to the outcome of other test assertions. If the Prerequisite evaluates to "false" then the Target instance is not qualified for evaluation by the Predicate.

Tags

Test assertions may be assigned 'tags' or 'keywords', which may in turn be given values. These tags provide you with an opportunity to categorize the test assertions. They enable you to group the test assertions, for example based on the type of test they assume or based on their target properties.

Variables

Test assertions may also include variables for convenience in storing values for reuse and shared use, as well as for parameterization.

3.1.3 General Semantics of a Test Assertion

As a test assertion has parts that can be evaluated over a Target instance (i.e. the Prerequisite and the Predicate), the following semantics apply to a test assertion:

With regard to a Target instance

· The "Target” is said to be not qualified for the Test Assertion if the Prerequisite (if any) evaluates to "false" over theTarget .

· The "Target” is said to fulfill the Normative Statement addressed by the Test Assertion if the Prerequisite (if any) evaluates to "true" over the Target , and the Predicate evaluates to "true".

· The "Target” is said to not fulfill the Normative Statement addressed by the Test Assertion if the Prerequisite (if any) evaluates to "true" over a Target , and the Predicate evaluates to "false".

3.1.4 Test Assertion Notation used in the Examples

The examples in this document have represented test assertions using a notation of the form:

Test Assertion:

TA id: gizmo-TA300

Normative Source: specification requirement 300

Target: electrical-gizmo

Prerequisite: [The gizmo] has a low-battery indicator.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Predicate: The low-battery indicator of [the gizmo] is a red LED that is flashing below PERCENT-CHARGE charge.

Tag: target-subcategoryof = widget

Variable: 'PERCENT-CHARGE' the percentage of charge in a battery.

NOTE: the optional Description part of a test assertion is not used in any example, and is not subject to the best practices and recommendations of this guidelines document.

Test Assertion List:

TA List id: A001

List Description: all assertions describing 'Size' requirements

List Members: TA001, TA002, TA003, TA004a, TA004b, TA005, TA006, TA007, TA008

The specification OASIS TAG TC Test Assertions Part 1, Test Assertions Model [[TAM]] defines a formal model for test assertions. The following table shows how this model maps to parts in the representation of test assertions used in the examples.

Test Assertion as represented in Section 3.1	Test Assertion annotation used in the examples in this document	Corresponding Entities in the OASIS TAG TC Test Assertions, Part 1 Test Assertions Model
Test Assertion	Test Assertion	Class: testAssertion
Identifier	TA id	attribute: testAssertion.id (the 'id' attribute of the testAssertion class)
Normative Source	Normative Source	Class: normativeSource
Target	Target	Class: target
Predicate	Predicate	Class: predicate
Description		Class: description
Prescription Level	Prescription Level	attribute: prescription.level
Prerequisite	Prerequisite	Class: prerequisite
Tag	Tag	Class: tag
Variable	Variable	Class: variable

3.2 Best Practices

In an actual test assertion definition, the previously mentioned properties are often explicitly represented as elements of the test assertion. For example, consider the following as a requirement from a specification on “widgets” (we will build on this example throughout these guidelines):

[requirement 100] “A widget MUST be of rectangular shape”.

Here is a test assertion addressing this requirement:

TA id: widget-TA100-1[2]

Normative Source: “widget specification”, requirement 100

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] is of rectangular shape

Prescription Level: mandatory

The assertion predicate is worded as an assertion, not as a requirement (the 'MUST' keyword is absent from the predicate but reflected in the prescription level). It has a clear Boolean value: either the statement is true, or it is false for a particular target. The case of how to show that a test assertion conveys optionality of a specification statement (for example, a statement using keywords SHOULD, MAY, etc.) is examined later.

3.2.1 Granularity of Test Assertions

[requirement 101] “A widget of medium size MUST use exactly one AA battery encased in a battery holder.”

There are actually two requirements here that can be tested separately:

(requirement 101, part 1) A medium-size widget MUST use exactly one AA battery.

(requirement 101, part 2) A medium-size widget MUST have a battery holder encasing the battery.

Because of this it is possible to write two test assertions:

TA id: widget-TA101-1a

Normative Source: specification requirement 101, part 1

Target: medium-size widget

Predicate: [the widget] uses exactly one AA battery.

Prescription Level: mandatory

and

TA id: widget-TA101-1b

Normative Source: specification requirement 101, part 2

Target: medium-size widget

Predicate: [the widget] has a battery holder encasing the battery.

Prescription Level: mandatory

The granularity of a test assertion is a matter of judgment. A single test assertion instead of two could have been written here, with the predicate: “[the widget] uses exactly one AA battery AND has a battery holder encasing the battery”.

This choice may later have an impact on the outcome of a test suite written to verify the conformance of widgets. With a single test assertion, a test case derived from this test assertion will not be expected to distinguish between the two failure cases. Using two test assertions - one for each sub-requirement - will ensure that a test suite can assess and report independently about the fulfillment of each sub-requirement. Other considerations such as the different nature of tests implied or the reuse of a test assertion in different conformance profiles [[VAR]], may also lead to the adoption of “fine-grained” instead of “coarse-grained” test assertions. Usage considerations will dictate the best choice.

3.2.2 Implicit Test Assertion Parts

It was noted earlier that a concrete representation of a test assertion may omit elements provided they are implicit. A common case of implicit test assertion components is the implicit target: When several test assertions relate to the same target, the latter may be described just once as part of the context where the test assertions are defined, so that it does not need to be repeated. For example: all test assertions related to requirements about the widget power supply in a widget specification may be grouped in the section “Widget Power Supply Requirements”, suggesting that they share the same target.

The predicate may be implicit: In some specifications where all requirements follow a similar pattern, it is often possible to straightforwardly derive the assertion predicate from a requirement so that the predicate does not need to be explicitly stated every time. One way to do this may be to use a simple rule. Take, for example, requirement 101, part 1 "A medium-size widget MUST use exactly one AA battery". Compare this text with the predicate of its test assertion, widget-TA101-1a, "[the widget] uses exactly one AA battery". There is so much similarity between the requirement text and the test assertion predicate text that an implementation may decide there is too much overhead in writing the predicate to warrant it and the implementation may then decide to merely use a quotation of the requirement in the normative source as an implicit predicate.

3.2.3 Handling Optional Statements

Requirement 101 in the widget example in Section 3.2.1 has a mandatory character: It uses the keyword 'MUST' (or it could use 'shall' in bold type) to show that it is an absolute requirement.

Interpreting the outcome of such test assertions is straightforward. Test cases derived from such test assertions can make a clear statement of conformance to the specification for the target being tested: '(test assertion predicate = “true”)' means not only that the target exhibits the specified feature of the specification, but also that the target fulfills a specification requirement, since this feature is required.

However there might be several ways to conform to a specification, also known as dimensions of variability [[VAR]]. While both conforming, two implementations may not exhibit the same features. This section considers one of the most obvious cases of variability: optional features.

Consider a case where the the specification statement is optional, for example, it uses the keywords 'SHOULD' / 'RECOMMENDED' or 'MAY' / 'OPTIONAL' as follows:

[statement 102] “It is RECOMMENDED for a widget to be waterproof.”

[statement 103] “A widget MAY have a metallic casing.”

Such (normative) statements cannot be construed as formal requirements – a widget will not fail to conform to the specification if it is not waterproof, or if it has a plastic casing. However, establishing conformance is not the sole objective of test assertions. Some test suites are intended to evaluate the capabilities of an implementation, for example, which options the suite implements, regardless of conformance considerations. Even with a conformance objective in mind, a clear separation shall be made between:

(a) Describing a condition under which a target can exhibit a specified feature. This is the role of the test assertion.

(b) Deciding if a target satisfies a conformance criterion. This is the role of one or more test cases that are derived from a test assertion, the outcome of which might be interpreted according to a conformance profile.

Therefore, test assertions can be written for statements 102 and 103 by simply focusing on the specified feature and its related predicate, ignoring the prescription level in the predicate and including it instead as the separate component of that name, for which suitable values are enumerated ('mandatory', 'preferred', 'permitted'):

TA id: widget-TA102-1

Normative Source: specification statement 102

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] is waterproof.

Prescription Level: preferred

TA id: widget-TA103-1

Normative Source: specification statement 103

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] has a metallic casing.

Prescription Level: permitted

The negative keywords 'MUST NOT' (alternatively 'shall not' in bold type) and 'SHOULD NOT' are handled as follows: With 'MUST NOT' the 'MUST' determines the prescription level, in this case 'mandatory', and the 'NOT' is transferred to the predicate. For example:

[statement 203] “A widget MUST NOT have a painted casing.”

TA id: widget-TA203-1

Normative Source: specification statement 203

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] does not have a painted casing.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Similarly with 'SHOULD NOT':

[statement 204] “A widget SHOULD NOT have a plastic battery holder.”

and

TA id: widget-TA204-1

Normative Source: specification statement 203

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] does not have a plastic battery holder.

Prescription Level: preferred

4 Advanced Features

We have considered the five essential elements of the test assertion: identifier, reference, target, predicate and prescription level. In practice there may be a need for further features to better cater for corner cases such as:

· Specifications where the normative statements are embedded wholly or partly in tables and diagrams

· Specifications which normatively reference other specifications

· Specification and test assertions versions

· Inheritance and dependencies between specifications

· Redundancy of excessively repeated assertions elements

· Test assertion targets which are categorized and/or related (inheritance, composition).

4.1 Complex Predicates

Recall the previous example requirement:

[requirement 101] “A widget of medium size MUST use exactly one AA battery and be encased in a battery holder.”

The target can be defined as “a medium-size widget” (as in section 3.2.1) or as just “a widget”. The latter is a natural decision if the specification requirement uses the wording: “[requirement 101] If a widget is medium size, then it MUST use exactly one AA battery and be encased in a battery holder.” For the simplicity of this example, if the two test assertion predicates for widget-TA101-1a and widget-TA101-1b are combined into one example, one possible outcome is:

TA id: widget-TA101-2a

Normative Source: requirement 101

Target: widget

Predicate: if [the widget] is medium-size, then [the widget] uses exactly one AA battery AND the battery is encased in a battery holder.

Prescription Level: mandatory

The target category is broad, but the predicate part is really of interest only for a subset of this category (the medium-size widgets). Usage considerations should again drive the decision here: a test suite that is designed to verify all widgets, and does not assume a prior categorization of these into small / medium / large sizes, would be improved with test assertions that only use “widget” as the target, such as widget-TA101-2a.

Note: As an important part of the test assertion, even when the target is implicit, not explicit, the target for each assertion must be clearly identifiable.

A test assertion predicate may, then, be a Boolean expression - a composition of atomic predicates using logical operators AND, OR, NOT. A test assertion predicate may also be of the kind: “if (condition) then (expression)”.

The predicate is worded in an abstract way, still close to the wording of the specification. No indication of what kind of test procedure will be used, such as how to determine the number and type of batteries, is given. Detailed criteria for the condition evaluation, such as what kind of battery holder is acceptable, are also not provided. These details are normally left to the test cases that can be derived from the test assertions. These test cases will determine the precise criteria for conforming to the specification.

However, if a precise criterion for interpreting the battery holder requirement is provided in an external specification, either referred to directly by the widget specification or by a related conformance clause, then a test assertion should use this criterion in its predicate. Such a test assertion should then refer not only to the specification requirement in its reference property, but also to the external specification or to the conformance clause that refers to this specification.

Another case where a predicate is more complex is when its conditional expression involves more than one part of an implementation (or implementations). In some cases it is clear which one of these objects must be considered the target, while others are just accessory objects.

Consider the following predicate: "the [widget price tag] matches the price assigned to the widget in its [catalog entry]", where price tags and catalog entries are both items that must follow the store policy (in effect the specification). In this case it may be reasonably assumed that the "catalog" content is authoritative over the price tag. The price tag can then be considered as the test target, while the accessory object may be identified by a variable which is then used in the predicate.

Other cases are more ambiguous. Consider the following predicate: "the [widget price tag] matches the price that is reported on the related [item in list of today's special offers] at the store entrance". Here it is not clear which one of these often-changing labels must be incriminated in the case of a discrepancy (although whichever is lower will likely prevail should a customer complain). The following approaches are possible:

· Consider a combined target, here a pair [price tag and promotion item for widget X] that is identified by the widget reference number. This combination will fail or pass the test.

· Select arbitrarily one object as the target, while the other will be an accessory, for example, identified by a variable. In a derived test case, a predicate failure will inevitably lead to the examination of both, should the accessory object be causing the failure.

· Write two or more similar test assertions using alternately one object and then the other as the target.

4.2 Prerequisites

An issue with the previous test assertion (widget-TA101-2a ) is that it will apply to all widgets, while the specification requirement is obviously of interest only for targets that are medium-sized. With widget-TA101-2a , the target predicate will always evaluate to “true” even when the widget is NOT medium-sized. Indeed, from a logical viewpoint, a predicate of the form “if <condition> then <property>” will always be true when <condition> is “false”. (The only way such a predicate evaluates to “false”, is when <condition> is “true” and <property> is “false”).

On the other hand if all widgets are categorized according to their claimed size prior to testing, then a test case implementing widget-TA101-2a will uselessly repeat the “size” test. In this situation the test assertions written in section 3.2.1 (widget-TA101-1a and widget-TA101-1b) are a better choice than widget-TA101-2a.

Assuming that the size of widgets is not a given but is subject to testing, how can we indicate that a preliminary test on the widget size must be done, and that the test assertion predicate must only apply if the widget is medium-size, meaning that otherwise the test assertion is considered “Not Relevant”? This is done by introducing a prerequisite element in the test assertion:

TA id: widget-TA101-2b

Normative Source: requirement 101

Target: widget

Prerequisite: [the widget] is medium-size

Predicate: [the widget] uses exactly one AA battery AND has a battery holder encasing the battery.

Prescription Level: mandatory

The prerequisite element is a logical expression of the same nature as the predicate, which concerns the same target instance.

When the prerequisite evaluates to false then the predicate is not evaluated.

4.3 Test Assertions for Properties

Requirements addressed by test assertions may be related to specific properties of a target. Assume there are specification requirements that define under which conditions a widget qualifies as “medium-size”. In other words, widgets do not come with a sticker that makes this categorization obvious by announcing small / medium / large. Instead, the size label is a property that is itself defined in the widget specification and that is subject to verification, like any other normative statement. In such a case, when writing test assertions, it is not a good idea to consider this property as part of the definition of the target category as in the case widget-TA101-1a and widget-TA101-1b, because the category of a widget could not be identified prior to doing any test on this widget.

Assume that the following requirement defines the “medium-size” property:

[requirement 104] “A widget that weighs between 100g and 300g and is from 5 to 15 centimeters long in its longer dimension, is a medium-size widget.”

There is a major distinction between requirement 104 and requirement 101:

• requirement 101 uses “medium-size” as a prerequisite: its predicates only concern widgets that are already established as medium-size.

• requirement 104 defines how to qualify a test assertion as medium-sized.

The test assertions for requirement 104 can be written as:

TA id: widget-TA104-1

Normative Source: specification requirement 104

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] weighs between 100g and 300g.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Tag: normative_property = medium-sized

A tag, “normative_property = medium-sized” is assigned to convey that the test assertion evaluation relates to the property ("medium-size"). (See more about tags in Section 4.6.2.)

TA id: widget-TA104-2

Normative Source: specification requirement 104

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] is from 5 to 15 centimeters long in its longer dimension.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Tag: normative_property = medium-sized

The test assertions widget-TA104-1 and widget-TA104-2 will be used to derive test cases that verify if the property "medium-size" applies to some widget. A "false" outcome for their predicates is an indicator that the medium-size property does not apply. It is not indicative of a violation of the specification itself. Such test assertions are called in this document "Property test assertions" to distinguish them from test assertions that are used as indicators of conformance to a specification.

However, both types of test assertions are designed in the same way, with a predicate that indicates whether or not a target satisfies some feature or property. There is no mention of the “medium-size” property in the predicates of test assertions ‘widget-TA104-1’ and ‘widget-TA104-2’. This is because this property is precisely what needs to be established by a test suite containing test cases that are derived from these test assertions. Only when a target (here a widget) evaluates to “true” for these two test assertions, will it be considered medium-size. These test assertions are only concerned with the nature of these tests, not with how to interpret their outcome.

4.4 Prerequisites Referring to Other Test Assertions

Now that there is a means to establish the “medium-size” property, we can use a more precise prerequisite element in the test assertion for the requirement 101. Because Test Assertions have been written for testing the property “medium-size”, we can refer to these in the Prerequisite:

TA id: widget-TA101-2c

Normative Source: specification requirement 101

Target: widget

Prerequisite: widget-TA104-1 AND widget-TA104-2

Predicate: [the widget] uses exactly one AA battery AND has a battery holder encasing the battery.

Prescription Level: mandatory

When a prerequisite element is quoting other test assertions, as seen above, with the prerequisite: (widget-TA104-1 AND widget-TA104-2), such references must be understood as short for: (widget-TA104-1 outcome = 'true' AND widget-TA104-2 outcome = 'true').

The prerequisite could have been stated as an explicit predicate in widget-TA101-2c. In other words, widget-TA101-2c could have been rewritten as:

TA id: widget-TA101-2d

Normative Source: specification requirement 101

Target: widget

Prerequisite: [the widget] weighs between 100g and 300g AND [the widget] is from 5 to 15 centimeters long in its longer dimension.

Predicate: [the widget] uses exactly one AA battery AND has a battery holder encasing the battery.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Here widget-TA101-2c is semantically equivalent to widget-TA101-2d. However, because the notion of “medium-size” is itself specified as a property that is subject to verification and enforcement, it is useful to write test assertions for this property. It is then preferable to reuse such test assertions as prerequisites whenever this property is assumed. If the notion of medium-size evolves in future releases of the widget specification, the test assertion does not need to be altered: only its prerequisite test assertion needs to be, while all test assertions that explicitly state the prerequisite predicate would need be updated.

4.5 Various Normative Sources

The normative content addressed by a test assertion is not always a single, well-identified specification requirement. The normative source may include:

· Multiple (non contiguous) specification statements.

· Non-textual content: tables and diagrams.

· Normative statements that present some testability challenges.

In the previously mentioned cases, it is often useful or necessary to "derive" a new textual statement that will be the actual normative source for the test assertion, and for which the predicate outcome will unequivocally indicate fulfillment or violation. This leads to the use of the DerivedSourceItem element of the "normativeSource" class in the Test Assertions Model [[TAM]].

This derived statement may in turn be worded so that the Predicate is implicit (see 3.2.2). In the case of "multiple statements", although using several references is possible in the Normative Source element, it is recommended to derive a new consolidated statement.

Identifying the normative source subject to a test assertion may be a delicate exercise, as the source material is often dependent on its context for its meaning. A more complete, self-sufficient statement may be then necessary to clarify the normative source and how it should be interpreted when testing. This may be done using the Interpretation element of the "normativeSource" class in the Test Assertions Model [[TAM]].

Even when the normative statement is a well identified portion of text in the specification, the following cases may occur:

· The normative source is implicit, as explained in 3.2.2. This means that there is no explicit element in the test assertion pointing at the specification part that is addressed. This may be the case when the test assertion normative source can be inferred from the location of the test assertion within the specification document itself.

· The specification document is itself expressed as a set of test assertions. This is possible by inserting in the "normative source" part of the test assertion, the normative statement itself instead of a reference to it.

4.6 Test Assertion Grouping

When writing test assertions while the specification is being analyzed, it is typical to group certain test assertions together. You can group assertions that have a special status, such as all accredited test assertions for a given specification, or those that share a particular characteristic, such as a common category of test assertion target.

A special kind of grouping is the container of all test assertions which belong to a particular specification or profile. The container may be the specification document itself if it includes the test assertions to be associated with it. One way to contain test assertions is with a Test Assertion Set . Such a construct may be used to group any number of test assertions for any purpose, not only as a container for all test assertions for the specification or profile. A test assertion set may group test assertions sharing a common test assertion part such as prerequisite.

There are two special ways to group test assertions: - explicitly listing test assertions by their identifiers (section 4.6.1) and a more implicit grouping by a common but not unique property such as the tag names or tag values assigned to the test assertions (section 4.6.2).

4.6.1 Lists

To explicitly identify a group of test assertions they can be listed by their unique test assertion identifiers, along with the logical reason which determines whether a test assertion is a member of that list or not to help with list maintenance.

For example:

TA List id: A001

List Description: all assertions describing 'Size' requirements

List Members: TA001, TA002, TA003, TA004a, TA004b, TA005, TA006, TA007, TA008

Note that if there were a large number of test assertions in this list we might have avoided enumerating each and every test assertion identifier by using an ellipsis ('…') to denote a range of identifiers, TA001 … TA007. There is a risk though that a test assertion be added later with identifier, say, of TA002a without the intention that it be part of this list. This may be less of a risk with a well thought out identifier scheme.

Test Assertion Document

A list of test assertions related to either conformance or interoperability testing will need special care with respect to version control and change management. Therefore, the criteria used to determine which test assertions are members of the list and which are not must be clear. The special case of a container for all test assertions related to a given specification or profile is a special example of an explicit list, although here the method used to define such a list may involve the use of inclusion of the test assertion itself rather than just its identifier within a special document or package.

One way to create such a list is to include all such related test assertions within a document, called a 'Test Assertion Document'. Other synonymous terms might be 'Test Assertion List', 'Specification Analysis', 'Test Assertion Collection' or 'Test Assertion Set'. Note that the container of this complete set of test assertions might instead be the document of the specification or conformance profile [[VAR]] itself, when test assertions are included within the text of the actual specification or profile.

4.6.2 Tags

Another way to define a group of test assertions is to use a non-unique property of such assertions rather than just using their unique identifiers in a list or containing the test assertions in a document. To this end, test assertions may be assigned metadata in the form of non-unique 'tags' or 'labels'.

For example, test assertion 'widget-TA104-2', already tagged to show that it is a property test assertion, might be further tagged as 'Size-Property-Description' to allow grouping by this property:

TA id: widget-TA104-2

Normative Source: specification requirement 104

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] is from 5 to 15 centimeters long in its longer dimension.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Tag: normative_property = medium-sized

Tag: Size-Property-Description

Then it might be included in a list of test assertions related to 'Medium Size' requirements, along with other assertions tagged 'Size-Related' but NOT with test assertions 'Small-Size-Related'.

TA List id: A002

List Description: all assertions describing 'Medium Size Widget' requirements

List Members: All test assertions with Tag 'Size-Property-Description' AND Tag 'Size-Related' AND NOT Tag 'Small-Size-Related'

This we have called a 'List' but it is in fact defined rather more implicitly than if every member were listed by its identifier, as described in section 4.6.1. In fact a more explicit and well-defined list might combine both tags and identifiers to group the assertions:

For example:

TA List id: A002

List Description: all assertions describing 'Medium Size Widget' requirements

List Description: All test assertions with Tag 'Size-Property-Description' AND Tag 'Size-Related' AND NOT Tag 'Small-Size-Related'

List Members: TA001, TA002, TA003, TA004a, TA004b, TA005, TA006, TA007, TA008

So a tag is a further, optional test assertion element useful in grouping test assertions. It may sometimes be useful to create tags as name-value pairs.

Note that several such filters can be applied to the same set of assertions and any given assertion can appear in more than one grouping.

Special consideration when using tags for grouping is to be given to the stages in the workflow of test assertion authoring and maintenance and subsequent use at which changes might be made to tags and their values. New tags may be added, perhaps by adding metadata which is separate from the documented test assertion. If metadata for test assertions is defined and maintained separately from the test assertions it may be subject to an entirely different set of version and change control rules and methodologies. In this case, a distinction might need to be made between tags which were part of the original test assertion and those whose list membership might be different to that which was known or expected when the list was defined.

For example, consider a list defined using tags but without explicitly listing test assertion identifiers:

TA List id: A002

List Description: all assertions describing 'Medium Size Widget' requirements

List Description: All test assertions with Tag 'Size-Property-Description' AND Tag 'Size-Related' AND NOT Tag 'Small-Size-Related'

If TA004a is originally tagged 'Size-Related' but the workflow allows it also to be subsequently tagged 'Small-Size-Related', then there will need to be rules which determine whether the test assertion is still a member of List 'A002'.

4.7 The Case of Multiple Specifications

Modularity and succinct description within specifications can be achieved by leveraging existing specifications that are referenced by other specifications. Specification writers often create "umbrella specifications". Umbrella specifications are widely scoped specifications that delegate certain normative descriptions to other "referenced specifications".

Specification modularity may also come from a “prototypical specification”, a "base specification" from which specialized derivative specifications may define specific information for a given context.

For proper specification analysis, inclusion of test assertions from both the umbrella or base specification and all the referenced specifications should be considered.

There are three dimensions that describe how assertions from a referenced specification may be included within an umbrella specification:

· 'scope of inclusions',

· 'conditionality of inclusions',

· 'modification of inclusions'.

These relationships between specifications can be expressed using a test assertion. This form of a test assertion is a specific form of assertion that expresses some form of conformance, like a conformance clause.

Multiple dimensions can be expressed within these relationships, for example, a subset of test assertions from a reference spec may be conditionally included in an umbrella specification.

Scope of Inclusions

An umbrella specification usually relates to a referenced specification by assuming or requiring conformance of its implementation to this specification. These conformance requirements can be expressed in a test assertion: Indeed, instead of a particular normative statement in a specification, the test assertion can address an entire conformance statement associated with the specification. The conformance statement, whether it concerns the entire specification or just a particular conformance profile, may be expressed in either the prerequisite, or the predicate, or both.

The scope of the conformance may be determined by the expressions in these prerequisites or predicates.

The test assertion may contain a conformance statement as part of its predicate (statement is either true or false) for varying scopes of the (current) umbrella specification as follows:

· conformance to an (entire) umbrella specification

· conformance to a specific normative statement from the umbrella specification

Similarly, the logical expression used in a prerequisite may include a conformance statement (true or false) for varying scopes of the external specification as follows:

· conformance to an (entire) referenced specification

· conformance to a specific test assertion from an referenced specification

Consider the following case where the widget specification (umbrella specification) states that:

“All requirements in this section only apply to "mini" widgets, i.e. Widgets that are conforming to the Mini-Widget Small Box specification 1.2.”

Then, in this 'mini widget' section:

[requirement 108] “If a mini-widget has a battery holder, then the mini-widget MUST be labelled as 'low voltage'.”

the corresponding test assertion for which is:

TA id: widget-TA108-1

Target: Widget

Normative Source: specification requirement 108

Prerequisite: [the widget] conforms to the Mini-Widget Small Box Specification 1.2 AND [the widget] has a battery holder.

Predicate: [the widget] is labelled 'low voltage'.

Prescription Level: mandatory

If there are known test assertions for the referenced specification (Mini-Widget Small Box Specification 1.2) then the first part of the prerequisite expression could be replaced with a list of the external specification's test assertions. This has the added advantage of allowing a partial inclusion where a target in the umbrella specification conforms to only just a subset of the normative statements in the referenced, external specification. In that case the prerequisite's list might be a subset of the list of all the test assertions for the referenced specification.

Conditionality of Inclusions

This dimension of inclusion describes the condition of whether assertions in an umbrella specification conform to a referenced specification. The prerequisite of the assertion may:

(a) Require that optional portions of the referenced specification be implemented in the umbrella,

(b) Conditionally require optional portions of the referenced specification be implemented in the umbrella (for example, based on the presence of hardware or some other such support), or

Modification of Inclusions

This dimension of inclusion describes where an umbrella specification conforms to a referenced specification, where some subset of assertions must be modified. This means of inclusion assumes some partitioning of the unchanged assertions and modified assertions. You can use "lists of assertions" to describe in the prerequisite the subset of assertions that the umbrella specification conforms to “unchanged”. The remaining test assertions (the changed set) can be individually specified as test assertions of the umbrella specification.

Typically, assertions are modified in a referenced specification that can be strengthened in a few ways:

· strengthening the prescription level of an assertion, eg. (x) MAY do (y) => (x) MUST do (y), or

· strengthening the meaning of an assertion with additional requirements, eg. IF (x) THEN (z) => IF (x AND y) THEN (z).

4.8 Conformance Statements

Predicates, like prerequisites, can use conformance statements in their expression. This is often needed when referring to external specifications, as seen in the previous section about handling multiple specifications.

Conformance statements can be made abstractly without specifying the details of any test assertion that might be involved in assessing this conformance:

Predicate: [the widget] conforms to the mini-widget specification

In the above case, it is assumed that a precise conformance clause exists that defines what it means to conform to the mini-widget specification.

In other cases, the conformance statement may be defined based on an explicit set of test assertions that are combined into a logical expression. The following Predicate expression is a logical composition of the outcomes of several test assertions:

Predicate: TA1 and TA2 and (TA3 or TA4)

This form of conformance statement may be appropriate for "properties" that can be complex and involve several test assertions.

Even the property defined in section 4.3 ("medium-size" widget) could be defined by such a predicate in a "conformance stating" test assertion. In the following, the test assertion widget-TA-mediumsize is asserting the conditions for a widget in order to qualify as medium-size:

TA id: widget-TA-mediumsize

Target: Widget

Normative Source: specification requirement 104

Predicate: [the widget] satisfies widget-TA104-1 AND widget-TA104-2.

Prescription Level: mandatory

When an entire set of test assertions has been defined for addressing a particular conformance profile, this test assertion set can be referred to in the Predicate, for example:

Predicate: Test Assertion Set (xyz)

where there is an implicit AND composition (a logical composition of all the test assertions in the test assertion set).

4.9 Specification Versions

Where a specification is the basis for test assertions there needs to be consideration of how to support further versions and maybe any previous versions of that specification. One solution is to create a set of test assertions for each specification version. The references to specifications may include the identification of the precise specification version, but this may restrict that test assertion to just one version of a specification. This simple strategy is less than ideal as it results in a need to re-author the test assertions each time there is a new specification version.

Another method of dealing with multiple specification versions is to create a repository of test assertions for a specification and properly tag each test assertion for the versions of the specification where it is valid. This can be accomplished by introducing two tags, VersionAdd and VersionDrop.

• tag: VersionAdd: the lowest numerical version to which the test assertion applies.

• tag: VersionDrop: the lowest numerical version number to which the test assertion does NOT apply.

Both VersionAdd and VersionDrop are optional tags. The absence of both tags would mean that the test assertion is valid in all specification versions. If only a VersionAdd tag exists and its value is X, the test assertion will be valid in version X of the specification and all subsequent versions. If only a VersionDrop tag exists and its value is Y, the test assertion will be valid in all versions of the specification prior to version Y. If both VersionAdd and VersionDrop tags exist, the test assertion will be valid in version X and all subsequent versions up to but not including version Y. Based on these rules, you can easily generate the set of test assertions that apply to a specific version of the specification.

Care must be taken when going from one version of a specification to another. The test assertion author must identify all test assertions that are the same between versions, dropped from one version, added to one version, and modified between versions. Test assertions that are the same, are dropped, or are added can be handled easily with the VersionAdd and VersionDrop tags.

Test assertions that are modified are trickier to handle. One could treat the modified test assertions as two separate test assertions and tag them with the appropriate VersionAdd and VersionDrop tags. Unfortunately, this approach does not provide any indication that the updated assertion is related to the test assertion in the prior specification.

Note that in order to track the evolution of a test assertion, it is important to preserve the test assertion identifiers across revisions of the specification. This is important because it is also important to maintain the relationship between a test assertion and the tests associated with that test assertion.

4.10 Variables

Variables have a similar role in test assertions as in other technologies. They provide a means for consistently sharing values across multiple assertions and with other processes. The writer of a set of test assertions can use a variable to assert that all occurrences of that variable must have the same value, even if that value cannot be known at the time the test assertions are written. For example, consider a set of assertions that share a reference to the line (mains) voltage supplied by the local electric utility, where the specific location varies . By declaring a variable for this value and distinguishing the name by, for example, representing it in upper case letters (UTILITY-VOLTAGE), each test assertion can use it within elements and expressions.

Note: Some people prefer the term "parameter" and would say that the test assertions in question are "parameterized."

The following example also shows the use of the variable within the predicate. Here, specification requirement 130 depends on the utility voltage, expressed as variable 'UTILITY-VOLTAGE'.

Variable: 'UTILITY-VOLTAGE' the AC voltage the voltage commonly provided for hand-held electrical appliances and laptop computers.
...

TA id: widget-TA130-1

Normative Source: specification requirement 130

Target: electrical widget

Predicate: [the electrical widget] contains an embedded AC adapter for the UTILITY-VOLTAGE.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Variables can be used across elements in a single test assertion, for example, in the prerequisite (see section 3.2) and other parts of a test assertion. For example, requirement 130 may be restricted only to widgets that have a compliance requirement for this voltage:

Prerequisite: [the electrical widget] is compliant with UTILITY-VOLTAGE

In some cases, the variable has a value known or assigned during test assertion authoring, and is simply used to allow agile resetting of its value. In other cases, the variable can be declared in name only, leaving the value to be assigned at a subsequent stage, such as in an implementation or in a conformance clause for a profile, level or module. The value might be measured during testing and could be associated with a property (see section 4.3). For example, if the medium-size property is true for a widget, then the SIZE variable is set to the value "medium".

A particular consideration in using variables is variable scope. For example, a grouping construct might be a place to declare variables whose scope only applies to those test assertions associated with that grouping. This allows the same variable and its value to be used across several test assertions while avoiding problems with name clashes in test assertions outside of the variable's scope.

4.11 Target Categories

As mentioned in section 3.1, the Target element of a test assertion generally defines a category of objects or parts of an implementation under test. For example, the test assertion target “widget” represents any object that qualifies as a widget.

It is often the case that different targets or categories are related, for example one target is a subcategory of another target . As a consequence:

· Two test assertions that have different target definitions (i.e. whose target elements define different categories), may apply to the same implementation or part of that implementation.

· In a test assertion, a prerequisite expression may refer to other test assertions. These referenced test assertions may use a target different from the target category of the referring test assertion, assuming these categories are related, e.g. one being a subtype of the other.

In order to allow for the above, target relationships should be explicitly stated. Such dependencies may be defined outside test assertions, such as in an object-oriented model. But you can also note these dependencies in the test assertion itself.

Subcategories

Consider where a Target named "electrical-gizmo" is a sub-category of the "widget" Target. It follows that all test assertions for widget also apply to electrical-gizmo.

One way to express a dependency is to use tags. In the following example, a tag named "target-subcategoryof" will remind the reader of the test assertion that the electrical-gizmo target is also a widget target since in this case 'electrical-gizmo' is a subcategory of 'widget'; therefore it follows that any target categorized as an 'electrical-gizmo' also belongs to the category 'widget' (but not vice versa):

TA id: gizmo-TA300

Normative Source: specification requirement 300

Target: electrical-gizmo

Prerequisite: [The gizmo] has a low-battery indicator.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Predicate: The low-battery indicator of [the gizmo] is a red LED that is flashing below 25% charge.

Tag: target-subcategoryof = widget

Another way to indicate that this target is also a widget, is to use a prefix notation such as 'widget:electrical-gizmo' (instead of just 'electrical-gizmo') for the target element in a test assertion:

TA id: gizmo-TA300

Target: widget:electrical-gizmo

Both modes of annotation (tag or target prefix) make it clear that an electrical-gizmo is also a widget. As mentioned earlier, this helps grouping test assertions based on the target to which they apply. It also helps deciding what other test assertions can be referred to in a prerequisite element.

For example, knowing that the electrical-gizmo is also a widget the following normative statement applies:

[statement 123] A widget MAY have a low-battery indicator.

Assuming there is already a test assertion (widget-TA123) written for widgets, addressing the above statement about the presence of a low-battery indicator:

TA id: widget-TA123

Normative Source: specification requirement 123

Target: widget

Prescription Level: mandatory

Predicate: [The widget] has a low-battery indicator.

then it is possible to reuse the test assertion widget-TA123 as a prerequisite for gizmo-TA300:

TA id: gizmo-TA300

Target: widget:electrical-gizmo

...

Prerequisite: widget-TA123

Composition

Another kind of target relationship is the Composition relationship: Target T2 is a component of Target T1 if an instance of T1 contains an instance of T2. The second category defines something which belongs to the first category as a component of it. For example, assuming widgets always have at least one switch to control their operation, the target “switch” is a component of the target “widget”. Knowledge of this composition relationship brings the same benefits as for subcategories:

· Grouping all test assertions that apply to widgets often should include the test assertions that apply to components of a widget (e.g. the switch)

· A test assertion on the switch of a widget may be used as a prerequisite to a test assertion of the widget itself. For example, addressing the requirement "the gizmo must be able to stop when the switch is off (Requirement# 400)" may use as prerequisite a test assertion (called here "TA-switchworks") that addresses the requirement "A switch must cut its electrical circuit when in OFF position". If satisfied, this requirement would guarantee one can rely on a well-functioning switch, when defining the test for Requirement 400. By using such a prerequisite in the test assertion for Requirement 400, we can ensure that the switch is tested first.

The test assertion below addresses the “effectiveness” requirement on the switch:

TA id: TA-switchworks

Normative Source: A switch must cut its electrical circuit when in OFF position.

Target: switch

Predicate: The electrical circuit on which [the switch] is, is cut when [the switch] is off.

Prescription Level: mandatory

The test assertion below will use TA-switchworks as prerequiste, because its own predicate expression over the gizmo target only makes sense if the target’s switch satisfies TA-switchworks:

TA id: TA400

Normative Source: Widget specification requirement 400

Target: gizmo

Prerequisite: TA-switchworks(switch)

Predicate: [the gizmo] stops within five minutes when the switch is off.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Tag: target-haspart = switch

In the above test assertion, the tag (target-haspart) is used to identify the switch element referred to by this test assertion and its prerequisite: it must be the switch that is a component of this gizmo.

5 Worked Example

Here we simulate a specification for our example “Widget” technology and follow through with the creation of test assertions based on this specification, completing this with a look at how to represent these test assertions using 'markup'.

5.1 Example Specification

We first make the examples look a little more like a typical specification extract.

...

Section 100

A widget MUST be of rectangular shape, as shown below.

Section 101

A widget of medium size MUST use exactly one AA battery and have a red button on top (see below).

The mechanisms by which the widget delivers its functionality is not subject to this specification.

Section 102

It is RECOMMENDED for a widget to be waterproof. If it is not waterproof then it MUST have a warning label stating that it is not waterproof.

Section 103

A widget MAY have a metallic casing. If it does have a metallic casing it MUST have a waterproof coating.

Section 104: Localizations of Widget Size

For implementations of widgets for use in the European Union a widget that weighs between 100g and 300g and is from 5 to 15 centimeters long in its longer dimension, is a medium-size widget. However, in USA the widget is medium-sized if it weighs between 4oz and 12oz and is from 2 inches to 6 inches long.

5.2 Test Assertions

Once test assertions for the specification have been crafted they can be presented in the form of a test assertion document. One section of the test assertion document, a group covering sections 100 to 104 of the example specification, could be as shown below.

5.2.1 Test Assertions for Examples (Sections 100 to 104)

TA id: widget-TA100-1

Normative Source: specification requirement 100

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] is of rectangular shape

Prescription Level: mandatory

TA id: widget-TA101-1a

Normative Source: specification requirement 101, part 1

Target: medium-size widget

Predicate: [the widget] uses exactly one AA battery.

Prescription Level: mandatory

TA id: widget-TA101-1b

Normative Source: specification requirement 101, part 2

Target: medium-size widget

Predicate: [the widget] has a red button on top.

Prescription Level: mandatory

TA id: widget-TA102-1

Normative Source: specification statement 102, part 1

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] is waterproof.

Prescription Level: preferred

TA id: widget-TA102-2

Normative Source: specification statement 102, part 2

Target: widget

Prerequisite: (widget-TA102-1 = false)

Predicate: [the widget] has a label warning that it is not waterproof.

Prescription Level: mandatory

TA id: widget-TA103-1

Normative Source: specification statement 103, part 1

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] has a metallic casing.

Prescription Level: permitted

TA id: widget-TA103-2

Normative Source: specification statement 103, part 2

Target: widget

Prerequisite: widget-TA103-1

Predicate: [the widget] has a waterproof coating over its metallic casing.

Prescription Level: mandatory

TA id: widget-TA104-1

Normative Source: specification requirement 104

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] weighs between WEIGHT-A and WEIGHT-B.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Tag:normative_property = medium-sized

TA id: widget-TA104-2

Normative Source: specification requirement 104

Target: widget

Predicate: [the widget] is from LENGTH-A to LENGTH-B long in its longer dimension.

Prescription Level: mandatory

Tag:normative_property = medium-sized

5.2.2 Variable Scope for Localizations of Widget Sizes

The following variables apply to:

Test Assertion References:

widget-TA104-1

widget-TA104-2

Variable: 'GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION' the geopolitical location of use of the widget, allowed values being strings enumerated in country code list ...

Variable: 'WEIGHT-A' a weight and its units. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'US' then WEIGHT-A is 4oz. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'EU' then WEIGHT-A is 100g.

Variable: 'WEIGHT-B' a weight and its units. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'US' then WEIGHT-B is 12oz. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'EU' then WEIGHT-B is 300g.

Variable: 'LENGTH-A' a length and its units. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'US' then LENGTH-A is 2 inches. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'EU' then LENGTH-B is 5cm.

Variable: 'LENGTH-B' a length and its units. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'US' then LENGTH-B is 6 inches. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'EU' then LENGTH-B is 15cm.

5.3 Test Assertions Markup

The examples of test assertions up until this point have been represented as labeled values. An alternative is to use 'markup' with the eXtensible Markup Language (XML). One form of markup for test assertions using XML is the OASIS TAG TC Test Assertion Markup Language [[TAML]]. This might represent the above test assertions as follows.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<testAssertionSet xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/tag/taml-201002/"

xmlns:taml="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/tag/taml-201002/"

setname=”Test Assertions for Widget Specification 1.1 (Sections 100 to 104)”

<refSourceItem>specification requirement 104</refSourceItem>

</normativeSource>

<target>widget</target>

<tag tname="NormativeProperty">medium-sized</tag>

<var vname="GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION"> the geopolitical location of use of the widget, allowed values being strings enumerated in country code list ...</var>

<var vname="WEIGHT-A"> a weight and its units. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'US' then WEIGHT-A is 4oz. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'EU' then WEIGHT-A is 100g.</var>

<var vname="WEIGHT-B">a weight and its units. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'US' then WEIGHT-B is 12oz. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'EU' then WEIGHT-B is 300g.</var>

<var vname="LENGTH-A">a length and its units. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'US' then LENGTH-A is 2 inches. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'EU' then LENGTH-B is 5cm.</var>

<var vname="LENGTH-B">a length and its units. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'US' then LENGTH-B is 6 inches. If GEOPOLITICAL-LOCATION is 'EU' then LENGTH-B is 15cm.</var>

</common>

<predicate> [the widget] weighs between WEIGHT-A and WEIGHT-B. </predicate>

</testAssertion>

<predicate> [the widget] is from LENGTH-A to LENGTH-B long in its longer dimension</predicate>

</testAssertion>

<refSourceItem>specification requirement 100</refSourceItem>

</normativeSource>

<target>widget</target>

<predicate>[the widget] is of rectangular shape</predicate>

</testAssertion>

<refSourceItem>specification requirement 101, part 1</refSourceItem>

</normativeSource>

<target>medium-size widget</target>

<predicate>[the widget] uses exactly one AA battery.</predicate>

</testAssertion>

<refSourceItem>specification requirement 101, part 2</refSourceItem>

</normativeSource>

<target>medium-size widget</target>

<predicate>[the widget] has a red button on top.</predicate>

</testAssertion>

<refSourceItem>specification statement 102, part 1</refSourceItem>

</normativeSource>

<target>widget</target>

<predicate>[the widget] is waterproof.</predicate>

</testAssertion>

<refSourceItem>specification statement 102, part 2</refSourceItem>

</normativeSource>

<target>widget</target>

<prerequisite>(widget-TA102-1 = false)</prerequisite>

<predicate> [the widget] has a label warning that it is not waterproof. </predicate>

</testAssertion>

<refSourceItem>specification statement 103, part 1</refSourceItem>

</normativeSource>

<target>widget</target>

<predicate>[the widget] has a metallic casing.</predicate>

</testAssertion>

<refSourceItem>specification statement 103, part 2</refSourceItem>

</normativeSource>

<target>widget</target>

<prerequisite>widget-TA103-1</prerequisite>

<predicate> [the widget] has a waterproof coating over its metallic casing. </predicate>

</testAssertion>

</testAssertionSet>

6 Glossary

Conformance

The fulfillment of specified requirements by a product, document, process, or service.

Conformance Clause

A statement in the Conformance section of a specification that provides a high-level description of what is required for an artifact to conform. The conformance clause may, in turn, refer to other parts of the specification for details. A conformance clause must reference one or more normative statements, directly or indirectly, and may refer to another conformance clause.

Implementation

A product, document, process, or service that is the realization of a specification or part of a specification.

Normative Source

The part of the test assertion that identifies the precise specification requirements or normative statements that the test assertion addresses. (See also Section 3.1.)

Normative Statement, or Normative Requirement

A statement made in the body of a specification that defines prescriptive requirements on a conformance target.

Predicate

An expression that asserts the feature (a behavior or a property) described in the referred specification statements. If the predicate is an expression which evaluates to “true” over the test assertion target, this means that the target exhibits that feature. “False” means the target does not exhibit that feature.

Prerequisite

A logical expression which further qualifies the relevance of the test assertion to the test assertion target. A prerequisite may include references to other test assertions. It evaluates to true or false and if false then the target is to be considered 'not qualified' for this test assertion.

Prescription Level

The test assertion defines a normative statement which may be mandatory (MUST / REQUIRED / SHALL), permitted (MAY / CAN) or preferred (SHOULD / RECOMMENDED). This property can be termed the test assertion’s prescription level. NOTE: in the case of the normative source including keywords 'MUST NOT' the prescription level 'mandatory' is used and the 'NOT' included in the predicate. There are differences between various conventions of normative language [[ISO/IEC Directives]][[RFC 2119]] and the above terms may be extended with more specialized terms for a particular convention and its distinct shades of meaning.

Tag

Metadata that allows the grouping of a test assertion and a means to categorize the test assertion targets.

Test Assertion

A testable expression for evaluating the adherence of part of an implementation to a normative requirement statement in a specification. A test assertion describes the expected output or behavior for the test assertion target within specific operation conditions, in a way that can be measured or tested.

Test Assertion Document

A container for a complete set of test assertions, often those related to all or part of a specification or conformance profile. In some cases the container is the specification itself with test assertions included within it. Test assertions can be added to the document, removed or changed using a change and version management procedure.

Test Assertion Target

Implementation or part of an implementation that can be the object of a test assertion or test case. (See also Section 3.1.)

Test Case

A set of a test tools, software or files (data, programs, scripts, or instructions for manual operations) that verifies the adherence of a test assertion target to one or more normative statements in the specification. Typically a test case is derived from one or more test assertions. Each test case includes: (1) a description of the test purpose (what is being tested - the conditions / requirements / capabilities which are to be addressed by a particular test), (2) the pass/fail criteria, (3) traceability information to the verified normative statements, either as a reference to a test assertion, or as a direct reference to the normative statement.

Test Metadata

Metadata that is included in test cases to facilitate automation and other processing.

Variable

A parameter or attribute employed by the writer of a test assertion to refer to a value that is not known at the time the test assertion is written, but will be determined at some later stage, possibly as late as the middle of running a set of tests. A variable is also employed to enable several assertions to share a value (set once, used by many), like a variable in other technologies.

Appendix A Acknowledgments

The following individuals have participated in the creation of this specification and are gratefully acknowledged:

Participants:

· Dennis Hamilton, Individual Member

· Dmitry Kostovarov, Oracle Corporation

· Dong-Hoon Lim, KIEC

· Hyunbo Cho, Pohang University

· Jacques Durand, Fujitsu

· Kevin Looney, Oracle Corporation

· Kyoung-Rog Yi, KIEC

· Lynne Rosenthal, NIST

· Patrick Curran, Oracle Corporation

· Paul Rank, Oracle Corporation

· Serm Kulvatunyou, NIST

· Stephen D. Green, Document Engineering Services

· Tim Boland, NIST

· Victor Rudometov, Oracle Corporation

· Youngkon Lee, KIEC

Appendix B Related Material

Test Assertion Methodologies

W3C work on testing methodology:

Work in W3C lead to the QA Framework: the Specification Guidelines (W3C, November 2004) provides a more general overview of all specification quality and conformance aspects, including the role of test assertions.

http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/

A succinct Test Assertion Guide was later drafted in W3C (W3C Editors' Draft, 2006)

http://www.w3.org/2006/03/test-assertion-guide

Another general FAQ about testing from W3C, showing the role of test assertions:

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/01/test-faq

Unisoft Glossary:

Unisoft have published their own Glossary about testing, that includes a definition and succinct categorization of Assertion. Intended for POSIX standard.

http://www.unisoft.com/glossary.html

The Voting Systems Standard (EAC), (2007):

http://www.eac.gov/files/vvsg/Final-TGDC-VVSG-08312007.pdf

Shows the use of a categorization (classes and sub-classes) of test assertion Targets. The object-oriented classification is used to determine which requirements (and assertions) apply, e.g. by automatic inheritance.

Blogs:

http://pramatr.com/2008/11/06/unit-test-assertions-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/

This blog reports on common practical issues with assertion selection, configuration, and messages for unit testing. Some code examples are given.

Google Test Primer (contains section on assertions):

http://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/GoogleTestPrimer

A methodology guide from Google focused on a software development environment. Develops a scripting approach to test assertions. Test assertions are encoded as macros that resemble function calls. One tests a class or function by making such assertions about its behavior.

EARL (W3C), (2009):

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Guide-20090702

EARL is a W3C initiative to normalize the reporting of Test Results. EARL takes a similar approach to these Test Assertions Guidelines by encoding it's descriptions in XML. Although there is a little overlap where EARL encoded data may describe asserted behavior (Assertions), EARL primarily focuses on test results, whereas these Test Assertions Guidelines focus on describing assertions and their contexts. The two systems can be complimentary.

Test Assertion Examples

Test Assertions from WS-Interoperability:

http://www.ws-i.org/Testing/Tools/2005/01/BP11_TAD_1-1.htm

This document shows a systematic design of Test Assertions as a basis for test suites that verify conformance to Web Service profiles. As test assertions are better understood by end-users (as opposed to test cases that are derived from them), WS-I test reports directly point at test assertions to indicate reasons for failure or success.

Test Assertions from HTML 4.01:

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Test/HTML401/current/assertions/assertions_toc.html

A well-rounded set of test assertions for all aspects of the HTML specification.

Generic Assertions for Manual Testing, RC3:

http://accessibility.freestandards.org/a11yspecs/kbd/kafs-gta-rc3.html

Describes minimal set of test assertions that must be developed to run on an implementation of the Keyboard Access Functional Specification - from Open A11y of Linux Foundation. Assertions are described with identifiers, titles, steps to take, and expected results.

SOAP Version 1.2 Specification Assertions and Test Collection (2003):

http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-testcollection/

The DejaGnu Testing Framework, POSIX conforming test framework, is based on a use of test assertions

http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/dejagnu/dejagnu_6.html

This builds on the POSIX assertions definitions and of particular note is the analysis of outcome interpretations. The present guidelines do not give extensive coverage to this because it is considered as more relevant to test suites where outcomes can be related to the knowledge of testing methods to be used.

Test Assertions at OpenSolaris.Org:

http://opensolaris.org/os/project/zfs-crypto/phase1/testassert/

Lists outlines of several assertions related to Open Solaris. Format of each assertion is as follows: “_stc_assertion_start, ID, DESCRIPTION, STRATEGY” (with numbered steps), and "_stc_assertion_end".

OpenSolaris SCM Migration Project:

http://www.genunix2.org/wiki/index.php/SCM_Test_Assertions

This page contains the test assertions for the OpenSolaris SCM Migration Project in wiki format. A number of assertions are listed, with edit capability (permission needed).

Appendix C Revision History

Revision	Date	Editor	Changes Made
CD 1	12/15/08	Stephen Green	CD 1 candidate
CD 2	02/04/09	Stephen Green	CD 2 for PR #1
CD 3	12/15/09	Stephen Green	CD 3 candidate
CD 4	02/12/10	Jacques Durand	CD 4 candidate, for Public Review #2
CD 5	08/10/10	Jacques Durand	CD 5 draft for Public Review #3
WD 6	04/10/11	Jacques Durand	CND1 candidate draft for Public Review
CND3	08/30/11	Jacques Durand	Candidate draft for Public Review and CN. -Removed some statements that could be construed as normative, added clearer references to the TA model specification.

[1] One way to do this is to designate a universally unique name for a set of test assertions and to include this name along with the identifier when referencing the test assertion from outside of this set.

[2] Just as we have done with the examples, it is useful to create and follow a scheme or convention when assigning test assertion identifiers. In the examples in these guidelines, the test assertion identifier is based on a combination of broad target category and specification requirement reference number, suffixed with extra characters because it is worth remembering that there is likely to be a many-to-many relationship between specification requirements and test assertions.