Test specification template#971
Conversation
|
@blacksponge, please review again. |
* Rearranged to conform to the draft template (PR zonemaster#971). * The test procedure has been updated to not output a message for every name server matching a criteria, but for the whole group of such servers. * Removed messages that would duplicate other test cases.
* Rearranged to conform to the draft template (PR zonemaster#971). * The test procedure has been updated to not output a message for every name server matching a criteria, but for the whole group of such servers. * Removed messages that would duplicate other test cases.
ghost
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find it nice to have an explanation on the specification template.
| > > first column, the default severity level in the second, and a statement on | ||
| > > when the message is outputted in the third. Always use the same table set-up, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
and a statement on when the message is outputted in the third
If I don't get it wrong, this is the 4th column (not the third). Maybe you could also add something about the third column as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the text was written the now third column was not there. It was added afterwards. Fixed.
* Adapts to draft template (zonemaster#971) * Messages are updated. * Informational messages removed to keep down the amount of messages.
* Adapts to draft template (zonemaster#971) * Messages are updated. * Informational messages removed to keep down the amount of messages.
* Adapts to draft template (zonemaster#971) * Messages are updated. * Informational messages removed to keep down the amount of messages.
|
@blacksponge and @PNAX, please re-review after my fixes. |
mattias-p
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good. I have attached a few suggestions.
|
@mattias-p and @PNAX, can you re-review? I did some smaller updates based on comments by @mattias-p. |
mattias-p
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I found a spelling error. Apart from that I think this is good enough.
|
|
||
| The test level abbreviation is always as follows: | ||
|
|
||
| Test level name | Example Test case ID | Abreviation | Prefix | Example message tag |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed. You have re-approve.
|
@PNAX, are you fine with this PR? Can you review and possibly approve? |
…er-engine-970 - Fixes Output issue
* Adapts to draft template (zonemaster#971) * Messages are updated. * Informational messages removed to keep down the amount of messages.
Purpose
The test case specifications have evolved over the years, and different specifications have different layouts. Originally, the test message tags were not included, then they were added and then moved. The layout has changed gradually, and not always consistently since the only template available has been a recently updated or created specification.
Changes
This PR adds two specifications and one template. The specifications are of "Message Tag" and "Test Case Identifier", respectively. The template is for a test case specification, and is dependent on the twp specifications.
The template should not be considered to be The Final Template, and should be updated when needed.
How to test this PR
This documentation only, and no testing is relevant.