転送します。このような内容で返信しようと思います。＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊T

転送します。
このような内容で返信しようと思います。

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

TIS 深見様

お世話になっております。
IIJ木村です。

ご返信頂きました内容にインデントで回答します。

>>観点やパターンの検討を行う中で、異なる業務フロー単位で確認した方が
>>良さそうな取引については対象業務フロー単位の見直しを行っております。

こちらとしては、提示されている資料（想定ケース・不具合数_xxxx.pdf）を正
とし、
そこからトップダウンで結合テスト観点のレビューをしています。
上記のような対応を行ってしまうと、
テスト観点の全量が揃わないと、こちらで確認出来なくなってしまいます。

例）アクター：O040（システム利用状況照会）に取引：DOGB01（請求状況照会）が現状定義されています。
→見直した結果、アクター：O050（配信状況照会）に取引：DOGB01（請求状況照会）を組み込んだ方が良いと判断。
→アクター：O040（システム利用状況照会）を確認しないとアクター：O050（配信状況照会）は正しいか判断出来ません。
※アクター：O040・50の両方に組み込まれる可能性がある など

また、上記の逆のパターンが存在した場合は、
一度OKとした結合テスト仕様書から取引を移動する可能性があるということになりますので、
もう一度2つの仕様書に対してレビューをするという形になるのでしょうか？
詳細設計のレビューなど他にも優先すべき作業がある中ですので、
極力手戻りのないプロセスでお願いします。

>>パターンの検討を行う際に、業務フロー単位に含む取引の見直しが発生しても
>>最終的に取引レベルで網羅性を確認するために利用しています。

最終的にとはいつのタイミングでしょうか。
現状でアクターの精査が出来ていないのでしたら、
まずそちらの精査を優先すべきではないでしょうか。
（フォーカスが定まっていない範囲の結合観点をレビューする必要性があるか不明です）

以上です。
よろしくお願いします。

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

以上です。
よろしくお願いします。

▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽

木村 俊介 Shunsuke Kimura


▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽

結果 (英語) 1:

Forwards.I tried to reply with such content.＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊Like TIS fukamiWe are indebted.This is IIJ Kimura.I received your reply to answers by indentation.should I check in the business flow units in >> terms and patterns of differentconducts a review of the business flow units for >> good trading.Article has been presented as this (supposed case and bug number _xxxx.pdf) positiveAnd then,Which then in a top-down review of coupling test point.Had gone out for the aboveAs a testing point of view, it is impossible see here.Example) actor:O040 (system usage inquiry) defines current business:DOGB01 (claim status inquiry).→ judged better result, Acta:O050 (delivery status inquiry) into trading:DOGB01 (claim status inquiry). → do not make the actors:O040 (system usage inquiry) and actor:O050 (delivery status query) are correct, cannot be determined. And that could be incorporated into both the * actor:O040 and 50In addition, if the reverse pattern of the aboveThat is likely to move trading to join test specifications and once was OK, soWould be again two specifications to review?So is there work should give priority to other detailed design reviews, etc.In the process as much as possible without back-thank you.There is the review of transactions involving in the work flow during examination of the >> patternare used to >> finally to verify completeness at the transaction level.And finally, when?.If you haven't at present scrutiny of actors,The first scrutiny there should be preferred.(It is unknown whether there is need to review the combined perspective of not fixed focus range)It is more than.Thank you in advance.＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊It is more than.Thank you in advance.▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽Kimura Shunsuke Shunsuke Kimura▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽▲▽

結果 (英語) 2:

forward.
I will try to reply in such content.

*********

TIS Fukami like

we are indebted.
IIJ is Kimura.

Answers in the indentation on the contents that I received your reply.

>> In to examine the point of view and pattern, the person who was confirmed by different business flow unit
we do a review of the target business flow unit for a looks good deal >>.

As here, the presentation that have been material (assuming case number of faults _xxxx.pdf) positive
and,
has a review of the integration test point of view in a top-down from there.
And it has gone the correspondence as described above,
and not be aligned is the total amount of the test point of view, you will not be able to check here.

Example) actor: O040 (trading system use situation inquiry): DOGB01 (claim status inquiry) has been defined status quo.
→ review results, actor: O050 (delivery situation inquiry) to the transaction: DOGB01 determined that it is better to incorporate the (claim status inquiry).
→ actor: O040 (system availability inquiry) If you do not see the actor: O050 (delivery status inquiry) can not be determined whether correct.
※ actor: O040 · 50 such as both could be incorporated into the

addition, in the case where the reverse pattern is present,
it means that once OK and the may move the transaction from the binding test specification it so,
or will become a form of the review to once again two of the specification?
So while there is work also should be given priority to another, such as detailed design of the review,
thank you in as much as possible rework process without.

>> When carrying out the examination of the pattern, even if review of the transaction occurs, including in the business flow unit
we use in order to verify the completeness in >> finally traded level.

Finally and at what times of the timing.
That it could not be the scrutiny of the actors in the current situation,
first I think we should give priority to there scrutiny.
(Or focus is there is a need to review the binding point of view of a range that does not been determined is unknown)

is over.
Nice to meet you.

********

Is over.
Nice to meet you.

▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽

Shunsuke Kimura Kimura Shunsuke


▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽ ▲ ▽

結果 (英語) 3:

As the transfer.Like this and try to reply.＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊As TIS FukamiAnd a pleasure to work with you.IIJ Kimura.I received your reply to answer in the content.After the examination is carried out in view of different patterns, and the business flow as a unitAfter a good deal of revision of flow unit.And this is the number of data is presented as PDF bug (case 2 (XXXX) positiveAnd, theFrom the viewpoint of combining top-down test are reviewed.And may be carried out as described above,The total amount of the test point is not completed, it is not here.Example: O actor), usage (inquiry): (DOGB situation inquiry request) is defined by the state.To review the actor: O 050 delivery situation inquiry: 01 (trade) DOGB situation inquiry request) to be determined.To use: actor, O (inquiry) and actor: O 050 delivery situation inquiry) is correct or not is judged.Such as: * the actor could be incorporated into both O 040: 50On the other hand, if there is the reverse of the above patternSo that once OK from binding test specification, it is possible to move the dealIn the form of two once again for the specification and review?So in the detailed design review, which should give priority to the other,Please don't hand back process as much as possible.Over time, the study of the pattern of trade in services flow generating unit reviewIn a final deal. In order to make sure the level of coverage is available.The timing of when you finally.If you cannot, at present, the scanning of the actorI think you should take your examination.(it is unclear whether there is a need to review the viewpoints of binding range fixed focus)That's it.Nice to meet you.＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊That's it.Nice to meet you.Livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blogShunsuke Kimura Shunsuke KimuraLivedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog - livedoor blog