Added example and documentation of EiffelTestCaseStartedEvent.

[d-stahl-ericsson]

No description provided.

[p-backman-ericsson]

once the activity => once the test case and change EiffelActivityFinishedEvent => EiffelTestCaseFinishedEvent

[p-backman-ericsson]

👍

[e-backmark-ericsson]

I don't see the need for 'testCase.tracker'. Could you elaborate on it and why it should be mandatory?

I do see the need for a testCase.executionFramework, or the like (optional). To be able to reference what test framework has been used. Mainly needed for statistics purposes probably.

What is the reasoning behind linking this event to a test suite using a CONTEXT link instead of an explicit optional TestSuiteStartedEvent link? I see the glory in using CONTEXT links all over, but could we then have a contextType on such a link that could be set to 'TestSuiteStartedEvent', or the like?

[d-stahl-ericsson]

data.executionFramework makes sense - what would the format of that be? A raw string? String+uri object, maybe?

data.testCase.tracker is mandatory to enforce the practice of providing some information as to where the test case can be found. All too often there are test cases scattered across multiple test management systems, as well as ad-hoc directory structures. Not supplying it as a separate property implies that data.testCase.tracker must somehow carry that information.

The reasoning behind CONTEXT is simply to provide a single way to declare what you're part of, whatever that is. Separate CONTEXT links (e.g. TEST_SUITE_CONTEXT vs ACTIVITY_CONTEXT) is an option, and I'm not particularly against it, but we need to talk it through properly. A dedicated type property modifying the CONTEXT link is not an option, though - syntax should be consistent for all links, regardless of link type.

[e-backmark-ericsson]

I see no natural URI for an executionFramework, so from my point of view a raw string would be fine.

I think the data.testCase.id and data.testCase.uri is enough to provide info about where the test cases can be found. Of course it could be convenient to provide a name of the tracker, but I don't think it should be mandatory.
Is 'tracker' really a good name for this? Why not call it 'testManagementSystem'? Is 'tracker' a de facto standard name for this kind of thing or would it need its own definition?

[d-stahl-ericsson]

Optional works for me. I suppose if anything should be mandatory apart from the id it's the uri. As for the name, I want to avoid "test management system", as it has connotations I would rather avoid - test cases are often stored in ways that would never qualify as a TMS. If there are better terms than "tracker" I'm open to suggestions.