| 
				
			 | 
			
			
				@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				1
			 | 
			
			
				+AIM 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				2
			 | 
			
			
				+=== 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				3
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				4
			 | 
			
			
				+Aims 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				5
			 | 
			
			
				+---- 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				6
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				7
			 | 
			
			
				+*   to enable developers, project managers ad QA managers to create 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				8
			 | 
			
			
				+    a standardized infrastructure of testing documentation 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				9
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				10
			 | 
			
			
				+*   to provide tools to deliver that documentation to a wider spectrum of 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				11
			 | 
			
			
				+    testers, be it beta-testers, alpha testers or an outsourced testing team 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				12
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				13
			 | 
			
			
				+*   to allow for repoting of issues in a standard form, allowing reference 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				14
			 | 
			
			
				+    to particular piece of documentation, minimizing effort needed to 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				15
			 | 
			
			
				+    communicate context 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				16
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				17
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				18
			 | 
			
			
				+Background 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				19
			 | 
			
			
				+---------- 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				20
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				21
			 | 
			
			
				+I have experience with a system of managing test cases and test documentation 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				22
			 | 
			
			
				+in a form of a filesystem tree filed up with a test procedure-per-file, each 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				23
			 | 
			
			
				+of them following a locally defined syntax.  Each of these files could be 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				24
			 | 
			
			
				+either used to generate HTML containing a table with testing steps, or imported 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				25
			 | 
			
			
				+to DevTest, a local test documentation and planning system. 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				26
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				27
			 | 
			
			
				+Each of these files represented a testing procedure valid for a particular 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				28
			 | 
			
			
				+version of the software and was subject to local VCS (subversion). 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				29
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				30
			 | 
			
			
				+However, the tree was huge, and due to constant development and even changing 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				31
			 | 
			
			
				+of requirements, the tree was getting old.  As a result, there were many cases 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				32
			 | 
			
			
				+when an incident report was raised against, say, version 1.2.3 of the SW, but 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				33
			 | 
			
			
				+the documentation was only relevant to version 1.1.0. 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				34
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				35
			 | 
			
			
				+Normally it is tester's responsibility to include in report the particular 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				36
			 | 
			
			
				+version of the documentation they were using to determine the oracle in the 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				37
			 | 
			
			
				+first place.  However, there are cases when this just doesn't happen.  Typical 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				38
			 | 
			
			
				+examples include of beta-testing, where many testers have only a little 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				39
			 | 
			
			
				+knowledge about how the system works and little experience to understand how 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				40
			 | 
			
			
				+important this is. 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				41
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				42
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				43
			 | 
			
			
				+HOW 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				44
			 | 
			
			
				+--- 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				45
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				46
			 | 
			
			
				+Bring up a standard markup that 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				47
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				48
			 | 
			
			
				+*   can be used in raw form (as a text/plain) 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				49
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				50
			 | 
			
			
				+*   can be served to client in a more usable form like n HTML table 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				51
			 | 
			
			
				+    with active elements allowing for results, comments etc. 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				52
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				53
			 | 
			
			
				+*   supports meta-data about required environments, software versions, 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				54
			 | 
			
			
				+    pre-requisities, and documentation version, whic can be then easily used 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				55
			 | 
			
			
				+    in the report 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				56
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				57
			 | 
			
			
				+ 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				58
			 | 
			
			
				+As a result, it sould be possible to serve test documentation in a consistent 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				59
			 | 
			
			
				+way, making it easy for inexperienced testers to catch up, at the same time 
			 | 
		
	
		
			
			| 
				
			 | 
			
				60
			 | 
			
			
				+lowering chances of excess confusion. 
			 |