-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Iss297 R107 discard duplicate sequence pair #336
Iss297 R107 discard duplicate sequence pair #336
Conversation
Availability time is not a range
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The BDDs as they stand don't read well to me - it isn't clear exactly what behaviour they are testing for, so I've suggested some re-work. Hope my suggestions make sense.
Given an xml file <xml_file> | ||
And it has sequence identifier <seq_id> | ||
And it has sequence number <seq_n> | ||
When a previous document exists with sequence identifier <prev_seq_id> and sequence number <prev_seq_n> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it makes more sense here to say that when the document is made available and then another document with the same id and number becomes available then when trying to add the second document it is not added. This BDD case never creates the first document, so all the work has to be done in "When a previous document exists..." which presumably creates the first document and adds it?
And it has sequence number <seq_n> | ||
When a previous document exists with sequence identifier <prev_seq_id> and sequence number <prev_seq_n> | ||
And the previous document has availability time <prev_avail> | ||
Then the previous document has availability time <post_avail> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would refactor this one too - given a file with sequence id and number and it is added to the sequence with availability time <prev_avail>
and an attempt is made to add a new file with same sequence id and number to the sequence then the availability time of the file in the sequence with that sequence id and number is <prev_avail>
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Much happier with the structure of these - thanks. Not sure about the details on the last one though, some questions there.
When a document arrives | ||
And it has sequence identifier <seq_id_2> | ||
And it has sequence number <seq_n_2> | ||
Then the previous document has availability time <avail_time_2> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Surely avail_time_1 and avail_time_2 are always the same in this case? What is the case where they would differ?
When a document arrives | ||
And it has sequence identifier <seq_id_2> | ||
And it has sequence number <seq_n_2> | ||
Then the previous document has availability time <avail_time_2> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just wondering: "previous" -> "first" for more clarity ?
|
||
|
||
| seq_id_1 | seq_n_1 | avail_time_1 | seq_id_2 | seq_n_2 | avail_time_2 | | ||
| n | 1 | n | 1 | 00:00:00.000 | 00:00:00.000 | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is n
for an availability time?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes more sense, thanks.
Obviously they need to be coded to make any sense, which would be one for @kozmaz87 to have a look at. Before going ahead, I'd like a time estimate please.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The BDDs look good, merging so we can handle the wiring later.
Scenarios for R107 and 108