How to handle tests that are indirectly covered by the test suite?

[spadgett]

The following requirements are covered by the test suite indirectly. There are no tests referencing them, however, so they look like they're missing in the coverage report. What's the best way to handle these?

• 4.3.1.1 Each LDP RDF Source MUST also be a conforming LDP Resource as defined in section 4.2 Resource, along with the restrictions in this section. LDP clients MAY infer the following triple: one whose subject is the LDP-RS, whose predicate is rdf:type, and whose object is ldp:Resource, but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDP-RS representation.
• 5.2.1.1 Each Linked Data Platform Container MUST also be a conforming Linked Data Platform RDF Source. LDP clients MAY infer the following triple: one whose subject is the LDPC, whose predicate is rdf:type, and whose object is ldp:RDFSource, but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDPC representation.
• 5.4.1.1 Each LDP Direct Container MUST also be a conforming LDP Container in section 5.2 Container along the following restrictions. LDP clients MAY infer the following triple: whose subject is the LDP Direct Container, whose predicate is rdf:type, and whose object is ldp:Container, but there is no requirement to materialize this triple in the LDP-DC representation.

I believe these are the only requirements without a corresponding @SpecTest in the test suite.

[sspeiche]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Samuel Padgett notifications@github.com
wrote:

The following requirements are covered by the test suite indirectly.
There are no tests referencing them, however, so they look like they're
missing in the coverage report. What's the best way to handle these?

Seems like we could just expand @SpecTest annotation to for something like
"indirectlyTests" and put a URL and SpecText there.

We could just have reporters generate them out as regular tests, maybe a
rdfs:seeAlso reference would be good. Keep it simple and not have to write
another test method but could see how this might mess up TestNG reporting.

[spadgett]

We also need to do something about the test we removed in #122. (Adding a comment here so we don't forget.)