16-07-2013, 12:17 PM
It very much depends on the philosophical question: are Control Tables
a) a high level document specifying in the abstract what is required, independent of technology?
or
b) a specification from which the detailed design can be derived and therefore a step along the way of the "Vee diagram" from user requirements to implementation.
I agree in recent years with the new 11202 SSI CTs that we are certainly going down the road of b).
Keep with what you are comfortable with; as a tester wanting to get ticks on the CT, I happen to disagree!
a) a high level document specifying in the abstract what is required, independent of technology?
or
b) a specification from which the detailed design can be derived and therefore a step along the way of the "Vee diagram" from user requirements to implementation.
I agree in recent years with the new 11202 SSI CTs that we are certainly going down the road of b).
Keep with what you are comfortable with; as a tester wanting to get ticks on the CT, I happen to disagree!
(16-07-2013, 08:07 AM)dorothy.pipet Wrote: IMO showing CG is consistent with SSI practice because SSI data tests TCG clear for the deadlocking, but the sectional route locking test is on the appropriate sub-route free.
While it might save the odd second to not write these tracks in, it is a strong habit and I don't think I could become consistent at leaving them out, which is perhaps a greater sin!
PJW