search

TPGEngine / tpg

Evolving Quadruped Robot Controllers with Emergent Tangled Program Graphs
MIT License
0 stars 0 forks source link

Peer Review - VnV Plan FR-SLN1 appears to be missing part & unclear #154

Open N4T10N01 opened 3 weeks ago

N4T10N01 commented 3 weeks ago

Artifact Under Review VnV/System Tests/Functional Tests/4.1.1 FR-SLN1

Team Number for Team Doing the Review Team 2

Description of Issue The "How test will be performed" section for test FR-SLN1 is embedded within the "Test Case" derivation section which honestly had me miss it until I inspected much closer. Also, the "How test will be performed" section doesn't clearly explain how the test will actually be done in particular steps, through a user or otherwise. Even outside of test setup conditions, which my teammate made mention of in another issue, there needs to be clear actions taken during the actual test, even if it's implied by the input and output sections.

Also, the test is slightly confusing in general. Why is the input specifying an action? I.e., script executes a given experiment. Do you mean to say the 'execute' command for a script is given and there is a preset experiment it runs on? Or an "experiment" file alongside an "execute" command is passed as input to the script specified? I think I get what the team is going for, but some clarification could go a long way.

All the above pertains to the "System Tests for Functional Requirements are specific" section of the rubric.

Suggestion:

  1. Separate "How test will be performed" section.
  2. Specify a clear set of actions your team plans to take to conduct the test, such as "open CLI on Microsoft Windows OS", which others can replicate.
  3. Change input to items or commands which can be taken in by a process. Clarify where items come from, such as a predefined test set or are randomized, etc. I.e., user gives experiment from Test Set A vs. user gives random experiment.