ETSI's Bug Tracker - Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language
View Issue Details

ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update
0005977 | Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language | Editorial | public | 30-11-2011 10:43 | 02-12-2011 13:59

Reporter | Ina Schieferdecker |
Assigned To | Ina Schieferdecker |
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed |
Platform |  | OS |  | OS Version |
Product Version |  |
Target Version | v4.4.1 (published 2012-04) | Fixed in Version | v4.4.1 (published 2012-04) |
Clause Reference(s) | Annex C
Source (company - Author) | Ina Schieferdecker (FOKUS)

Summary | 0005977: Reordering Annex C according to Table 15 in 16.1.2

Description

Hi Ina,
sorry for the late reply. In principle I think this is a very good idea.
But please make sure this change is properly documented in the new version and also ensure that tool vendors are aware of this change.
Thx,
Stephan
From: Schieferdecker, Ina [mailto:ina.schieferdecker@fokus.fraunhofer.de]
Sent: 30. kesÃ¤kuuta 2011 12:44
To: stephan.schulz@conformiq.com
Cc: hogrefe@informatik.uni-goettingen.de; Anthony.Wiles@etsi.org; stf430@etsi.org
Subject: Concerning restructuring of TTCN-3 Part 1 Annex C
Dear Stephan
We are just discussing http://t-ort.etsi.org/view.php?id=5899 [^] . To resolve the issue, beside other things we decided to add an isbound function.
Having a look at Annex C, it is quite apparent that over the years that annex became rather hard to read as substructuring is missing.
For example, IsPresent is defined in C.31, IsChosen in C.32, and IsValue in C.38. IsBound would become C.43. There are more cases like this.
Hence, we discussed to have another level of headings in Annex C in order to group predefined functions.
Would you agree to this approach? It would improve readability, but change the references to all predefined functions â€“ at least, 2nd and not 1st level and for quite some different numbers â€¦
Thank you in advance
Ina

Steps To Reproduce |
Additional Information | Proposal to make sections in Annex C according to categories in Table 15 and to order the subsections for the predefined functions as they are ordered in that table.
Tags | No tags attached.
Relationships |
Attached Files | CR5977.doc (222,720) 01-12-2011 16:21 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=2650&type=bug

Issue History
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change
30-11-2011 10:43 | Ina Schieferdecker | New Issue |
30-11-2011 10:43 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | new => assigned
30-11-2011 10:43 | Ina Schieferdecker | Assigned To | => Ina Schieferdecker
30-11-2011 10:43 | Ina Schieferdecker | Clause Reference(s) | => Annex C
30-11-2011 10:43 | Ina Schieferdecker | Source (company - Author) | => Ina Schieferdecker (FOKUS)
30-11-2011 10:45 | Gyorgy Rethy | Project | TTCN-3 Change Requests => Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language
30-11-2011 10:45 | Gyorgy Rethy | Clause Reference(s) | Annex C => Annex C
30-11-2011 10:45 | Gyorgy Rethy | Target Version | => Edition 4.4.1
30-11-2011 12:45 | Bogdan Stanca-Kaposta | Note Added: 0010440 |
01-12-2011 15:43 | Ina Schieferdecker | Note Added: 0010489 |
01-12-2011 16:21 | Ina Schieferdecker | File Added: CR5977.doc |
01-12-2011 16:23 | Bogdan Stanca-Kaposta | Note Added: 0010492 |
02-12-2011 07:16 | Ina Schieferdecker | Note Added: 0010497 |
02-12-2011 13:58 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | assigned => resolved
02-12-2011 13:58 | Ina Schieferdecker | Resolution | open => fixed
02-12-2011 13:58 | Ina Schieferdecker | Fixed in Version | => Edition 4.4.1
02-12-2011 13:59 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | resolved => closed

Notes

(0010440)
Bogdan Stanca-Kaposta
30-11-2011 12:45

Dear Ina,
From the point of view of the Conformance Testsuite STF433 this change is still ok.
Nevertheless we would recommend to keep the numbering from now on for all Standard clauses, since the STF work uses the clause numbering as references. If a clause would be removed, the number should not be reused for any other new clause.
(e.g. just like the paragraphs in the law - "clause was removed")
Best regards,
Bogdan

(0010489)
Ina Schieferdecker
01-12-2011 15:43

Dear Bogdan
thank you for the immediate response and for supporting the CR.
Wrt. the test suite: what about using th clause headlines instead of the clause numbers? As TTCN-3 is a living standard now and then changes will also be needed in the structure of the document. We tried to keep the main clause structure stable, but cannot assure this for subclause. Still, the clause headlines are rather stable and potentially a better reference than the clause numbers.
Best regards, Ina

(0010492)
Bogdan Stanca-Kaposta
01-12-2011 16:23

Dear Ina,
Actually I would expect that the headlines would change often as clause numbering. :)
Besides, headlines are not always unique, as they are defined by their parent scope.
For the main standard I would expect that the clauses are kept fixed. As for the Annexes the references are not that many (if any) and therefore these are not that critical, but would anyway produce some amount of work for each Conformance STF to track these changes. (I think this would be in our all interest to keep this time as short as possible.)
Another idea would be to have some sort of (unique) identifiers for clauses and use these.
As we have around 900 test modules I would think that is rather late to change this. This is also due the limited time of the STF not really feasible.
Best regards,
Bogdan (STF433)

(0010497)
Ina Schieferdecker
02-12-2011 07:16

Dear Bogdan
this discussion is a bit in the wrong forum - still: in my view, TTCN-3 is matured so that clause changes are rather unlikely - I also think that a test suite should not determine how the technology to be tested is written - IMHO - still, I understand your position and think that it is indeed in the interest of all of us to have an efficient development of the standard and the test suite altogether. And yes, we have tried to keep the clauses as fixed as possible - and in case of main clauses even made use of void clauses - if this is to be applied also on subclause and subsubclause level it needs to be discussed - for example, it is unlikely that the restrictions numbering can be fixed as now and then there are corrections which require new, removed and changed restrictions. Likewise, the grammar rules can hardly have a fixed number. If we squeeze in too many void clauses or restrictions or rules the standard would become unreadable. In short: to keep as is has been the default, however, where needed changes should be possible.
Best regards, Ina