PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Revised Test Plan

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Revised Test Plan

Re: PMP> Revised Test Plan

Chris Wellens (
Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:28:14 -0800 (PST)


I look forward to seeing your revised test plan.

On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Gail Songer wrote:

> On Jan 16, 11:56pm, Chris Wellens wrote:
> > Subject: PMP> Revised Test Plan
> >For all the items listed in #6 below, InterWorking
> >Labs has tests. We are modifying the output of the
> >tests so that only the data containing the name of the
> >object and its current value is included in an output
> >file. That way we get only the test results reflecting
> >a list of all objects and their values for each printer.
> Exactly what do the tests do? How does it differ from the mib walk?
> > 4. Do a MIB walk on each product and count the returned objects.
> I assume that you are saving the responces?
> > 5. Generate controlled (in a pre-defined script) printer specific
> > transactions, including jobs in various formats and various sizes
> > (known page counts), postscript files, raw ascii, and specific applications
> > (e.g. Word, Navigator, Quicken).
> What is the purpose of printing lots of jobs? The only thing I can think of is
> to make sure that the page count increments appropriately, and that can be done
> with one or two jobs.
> > 6. Start the test software application for the following areas. After
> > completing the test for each line item, check to make sure the values of
> > the individual objects are contained in the specified output file.
> >
> >
> > Trap Test: coverOpen
> > Trap Test: noPaper
> > Trap Test: noToner
> > Trap Test: paperjam
> Is the trap table going to be read? What about the sub-unit status and the 3
> magic host resourses objects?
> >
> > 6. Compare the values of the objects in each area returned from each
> > printer. Make a list of all variations. Decide on how the spec should
> > be modified.
> Deciding on the spec should be modified will be done at some later date, right?
> >-- End of excerpt from Chris Wellens
> It is my opinion that you will find lots of differences in very key areas.
> Most developers can figure out the size of media path and what is on the front
> panel. The problem is that the sub unit status variables and the 3 magic host
> resources variables are ill-defined and as such there has been lots of
> interpretation.
> For example, the definition of off-line varies between manufacturers. What
> should prtInputStatus say when there is load paper for the tray? What should
> it say when there is no paper in the tray but there is not a load paper
> condition for this tray? What should hrPrinterDetectedErrorState say(this
> object defines noPaper as "down" for hrDeviceStatus, but the printer is
> definately not in that state)?
> There needs to be some focus on these types of conditions since this is where
> the spec is the weakest.
> Gail
> --
> Gail Songer Electronics For Imaging
> 2855 Campus Drive
> (415) 268-7235 San Mateo, CA 94403