Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-586

Adopt new version of LDM-540 for LSP Review

    Details

    • Type: RFC
    • Status: Implemented
    • Resolution: Done
    • Component/s: DM, TCT
    • Labels:

      Description

      New version of LDM-540, including the following updates:

      • Old test scripts have been marked as deprecated
      • New Test Cases have been drafted, and related to Jira Verification Elements that derive directly from requirements in LDM-554

      The PDF of the new version is here.

      For examples of the inserted images, see pages 197-199 (Sec. 4.133.7).

       

      There are some issues with the `jira-sync` version of this document not being able to include images that are part of Test Cases. In order to include those images in the version of LDM-540 that will be shared with reviewers for the LSP Review (Apr. 10-12), the following changes have been implemented on a ticket branch (DM-18288):

      • Manually include the images in the github repo (on ticket branch)
      • Manually update `jira_docugen.txt` to include these images with their correct paths
      • Edit all \includegraphics{} statements to \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{} so that the images don't extend beyond the minipages

       

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment -

            I approve this RFC

            Show
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment - I approve this RFC
            Hide
            gpdf Gregory Dubois-Felsmann added a comment -

            I approve this RFC, on the understanding that it's a work-in-progress snapshot of a great deal of test development still ahead.

            It would be preferable if this status were made clear in the document itself, perhaps in the "Scope" section or even in the abstract?

            Show
            gpdf Gregory Dubois-Felsmann added a comment - I approve this RFC, on the understanding that it's a work-in-progress snapshot of a great deal of test development still ahead. It would be preferable if this status were made clear in the document itself, perhaps in the "Scope" section or even in the abstract?
            Hide
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment -

            I can check that 

            Show
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment - I can check that 
            Hide
            gpdf Gregory Dubois-Felsmann added a comment -

            To be more explicit: you can’t tell from reading the document that we know that it’s incomplete. I think we should say up front that it’s complete with regard to having entries covering every currently valid requirement, but that only some of them are actually fleshed out with test details.

            Show
            gpdf Gregory Dubois-Felsmann added a comment - To be more explicit: you can’t tell from reading the document that we know that it’s incomplete. I think we should say up front that it’s complete with regard to having entries covering every currently valid requirement, but that only some of them are actually fleshed out with test details.
            Hide
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment - - edited

            Added clarifying statement in abstract.

            Show
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment - - edited Added clarifying statement in abstract.

              People

              • Assignee:
                jcarlin Jeffrey Carlin
                Reporter:
                jcarlin Jeffrey Carlin
                Watchers:
                Brian Van Klaveren, Gabriele Comoretto, Gregory Dubois-Felsmann, Jeffrey Carlin, Leanne Guy
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                5 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:
                  Planned End:

                  Summary Panel