opengeospatial / ets-wms13

Repository for the Exectutable Test Suite for WMS 1.3.0
Apache License 2.0
2 stars 4 forks source link

Test should represent better the conformance classes #35

Closed bermud closed 7 years ago

bermud commented 7 years ago

Issue 1: The specification talks bout 2 conformance classes: WMS Basic and Queryable WMS. We should refractor the test so the root parent in the CTL only has two children "WMS Basic" and "Queryable WMS".

Issue 2: We have these options in the test:

Are all these a conformance class or?

rjmartell commented 7 years ago

Try delineating the conformance classes using the ctl:profile tag, such that Queryable WMS depends on Basic WMS. The Q-WMS tests are only run if GetFeatureInfo is advertised in the capabilities doc; they're skipped otherwise.

dstenger commented 7 years ago

Regarding issue 1: So, the aim is to improve the code structure for developers and to enhance the comprehensibility of the structure of the test results for users?

Regarding issue 2: No, these are no conformance classes. They test the "Handling multi-dimensional data", which is described in Annex C (page 51) and Annex D (page 57). So, there is a reason to handle them separately.

@rjmartell: Thank you for the hint.

dstenger commented 7 years ago

Next step: Create root elements for both CCs and 3 optional categories (Raster ELEVATION, Vector ELEVATION and TIME).

dstenger commented 7 years ago

The adjustments are quite complex as the different CCs are distributed over several ctl script files. So, single tests have to be extracted to be able to group all test of a CC. Work is currently in progress: https://github.com/lat-lon/ets-wms13/tree/restructureTestsToRepresentCCs-4150

dstenger commented 7 years ago

We continued with the refactoring of the tests (see previously mentioned branch).

Currently, following elements are on the root level of the ctl script:

These root elements derive from section "What is tested" of http://cite.opengeospatial.org/teamengine/about/wms/1.3.0/site/ .

Can you please review if this structure is fine for you?

dstenger commented 7 years ago

Some proposed improvements:

dstenger commented 7 years ago

Included solution for proposed improvements into feature branch.

dstenger commented 7 years ago

Pull request #42 was created.

dstenger commented 7 years ago

The feature branch was tested successfully and merged into master branch. It will be part of the upcoming release.