Please describe the problem you'd like to be solved.
As a reader of the black-box feature files or as a developer debugging them I want to quickly understand what part of an Archivematica system/AIP is being tested in the details of any scenario.
Describe the solution you'd like to see implemented.
Following this conversation here on the recent PR work there is an implied knowledge in what is being tested. A filesec an amdsec an event. Those working closely with Archivematica may be able to pull that information apart as METS in the first two instances and PREMIS in the latter two. I feel like we can do better for the non-expert and not assume this, (or even expert with their head-space elsewhere at the time of reading).
In the conversation above I suggested using namespaces as prefixes:
* mets:fileSec
* mets:amdSec
* premis:event
* Etc.
For me this would serve the purpose of being explicit. Technically it also makes it clear as per the function of the namespace where elements such as event belong. It doesn't conflict with an event from a future standard we incorporate.
Describe alternatives you've considered.
There may be other ways to do this, or other syntax that can be adopted. Language can be make more explicit in different ways. Tests could also be split into functions, METS tests, PREMIS tests, etc. Additionally, it has come up that this detail might be too much for a feature file, in which case, then an AIP METS is valid according to an Archivematica standard abstracts this problem away somewhat.
Additional context
Capturing discussions in the acceptance tests: PR141 referenced above.
For Artefactual use:
Please make sure these steps are taken before moving this issue from Review to Verified in Waffle:
All PRs related to this issue are properly linked 👍
All PRs related to this issue have been merged 👍
Test plan for this issue has been implemented and passed 👍
Documentation regarding this issue has been written and it has been added to the release notes, if needed 👍
ross-spencer
commented
4 years ago
Please describe the problem you'd like to be solved.
As a reader of the black-box feature files or as a developer debugging them I want to quickly understand what part of an Archivematica system/AIP is being tested in the details of any scenario.
Describe the solution you'd like to see implemented.
Following this conversation here on the recent PR work there is an implied knowledge in what is being tested. A
filesecanamdsecanevent. Those working closely with Archivematica may be able to pull that information apart as METS in the first two instances and PREMIS in the latter two. I feel like we can do better for the non-expert and not assume this, (or even expert with their head-space elsewhere at the time of reading).In the conversation above I suggested using namespaces as prefixes:
For me this would serve the purpose of being explicit. Technically it also makes it clear as per the function of the namespace where elements such as
eventbelong. It doesn't conflict with an event from a future standard we incorporate.Describe alternatives you've considered.
There may be other ways to do this, or other syntax that can be adopted. Language can be make more explicit in different ways. Tests could also be split into functions, METS tests, PREMIS tests, etc. Additionally, it has come up that this detail might be too much for a feature file, in which case,
then an AIP METS is valid according to an Archivematica standardabstracts this problem away somewhat.Additional context
Capturing discussions in the acceptance tests: PR141 referenced above.
For Artefactual use: Please make sure these steps are taken before moving this issue from Review to Verified in Waffle: