Open Stack

Rocky & Will,

Here's the challenge > DefCore uses the tests to define core and we are constrained by what exists.   This was part of the discussion leading up to the principle definition.  I agree that it would be ideal to have the capabilities first and then map the tests; however, that would be more confusing in this context.

For now, using tests to define capabilities is a very helpful construct(tm).  I hope that the community is inspired to do what you are suggesting and identify capability gaps and then write code/tests to verify them.  Really, that's what blueprints are supposed to be.  Until that day arrives, we're playing the hand that we have.

Rob

Will Auld wrote:
I think this should apply to any product, commercial or otherwise, for which we grant a license.

As for my problem with "Capability," I think it should be more about the functionality than the tests:

Capability - the functionality ensured by a set of tests collected into a group as defined by the technical community (the DefCore committee has made preliminary assignments to start the process)

Yes, I agree that a capability is not "a set of tests" so much as a set of behaviors/interactions/functionality demonstrated by the system under test through the exercise of the specified test set.

--Rocky

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20140502/f17275d0/attachment.html>