Evaluation Methodology based on Test Cases Sample Clauses

Evaluation Methodology based on Test Cases. This section introduces the methodology selected for WP7 in D7.1 [21] to test the IoT6 architecture and the involved components. For the test process of the IoT6 architecture, the selected methodology is ETSI EG-202-237 [23] also used in the PROBE-IT project [24]. The ETSI methodology defines a global process for interoperability testing in distributed systems. This guide indicates the specification and execution of interoperability tests for general communication systems. For the IoT6 project, it needs to adapt this methodology in order to fit the requirements of the IoT6 architecture. This adaptation was done in the deliverable D7.1. Here, we only provide a brief introduction of the testing methodology for a further discussion of the testing topic; the reader is referred to D7.1. The selected methodology takes uses cases (UCs) as a basis to generate Test Cases (TCs) for identifying the testing activities in a project at a very early stage of the development cycle. The advantage of this method is that the generation of Test Cases can begin before a single line of code is written and as a result the testing activities can accompany the entire project development cycle from the very start. While in the IoT6 project the testing process just started after initial achievements have been reached, the use cases described in D1.1 are still a very good means to assess the functionality of the entire system and to create Test Cases in spite of components that are not yet fully developed. A UC is therefore, defining the behaviour of a system, without necessarily referencing the internal structure, thus it can be seen as a black-box approach. It can be used to model the external requirements on a subject (i.e. component) and further specify the functionality exposed by a subject. The focus lies on specifying behaviour that a subject can perform with one or more actors, where behaviours include interactions between actor and subjects who may result in state changes and communication with the environment. A use case defines how a user interacts with a system to achieve a goal. The user in this part can be a human being, or another system component. Use cases are made up of one or more use case scenarios, which describe paths which can be followed. A Test Case (TC) is a set of inputs in combination with execution conditions and expected results, developed to execute a specific program part to verify a particular requirement. A Test Case is a set of inputs that exercises...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Evaluation Methodology based on Test Cases

  • Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)

  • Claims Review Methodology a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.‌

  • Calculation methodology No adjustment in the Conversion Price need be made unless the adjustment would require an increase or decrease of at least 1% in the Conversion Price then in effect, provided that any adjustment that would otherwise be required to be made shall be carried forward and taken into account in any subsequent adjustment. Except as stated in this Article VI, the Conversion Rate will not be adjusted for the issuance of Common Stock or any securities convertible into or exchangeable for Common Stock or carrying the right to purchase any of the foregoing. Any adjustments that are made shall be carried forward and taken into account in any subsequent adjustment. All calculations under Article V and Section 6.06 hereof and this Section 6.07 shall be made to the nearest cent or to the nearest 1/10,000th of a share, as the case may be.

  • Selection Criteria Each Contract is secured by a new or used Motorcycle. No Contract has a Contract Rate less than 1.00%. Each Contract amortizes the amount financed over an original term no greater than 84 months (excluding periods of deferral of first payment). Each Contract has a Principal Balance of at least $500.00 as of the Cutoff Date.

  • Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan

  • Additional RO Review Criteria (1) In addition to the requirements in Subparagraph 34A, the RO must:

  • Completion of Evaluation Cycle 1. The summative evaluation rating shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, assessed in a holistic manner, that is aligned to the Ohio Educator Standards. Only evidence gathered during the walkthroughs and formal observations that are conducted for the current school year may be used.

  • Performance Testing 7.2.1 The Design-Builder shall direct and supervise the tests and, if necessary, the retests of the Plant using Design-Builder’s supervisory personnel and the Air Emissions Tester shall conduct the air emissions test, in each case, in accordance with the testing procedures set forth in Exhibit A (the “Performance Tests”), to demonstrate, at a minimum, compliance with the Performance Guarantee Criteria. Owner is responsible for obtaining Air Emissions Tester and for ensuring Air Emissions Tester’s timely performance. Design-Builder shall cooperate with the Air Emissions Tester to facilitate performance of all air emissions tests. Design-Builder shall not be held responsible for the actions of Owner’s employees and third parties involved in the Performance Testing, including but not limited to Air Emissions Tester.

  • Performance Measurement Satisfactory performance of this Contract will be measured by:

  • Long Term Cost Evaluation Criterion 4. READ CAREFULLY and see in the RFP document under "Proposal Scoring and Evaluation". Points will be assigned to this criterion based on your answer to this Attribute. Points are awarded if you agree not increase your catalog prices (as defined herein) more than X% annually over the previous year for the life of the contract, unless an exigent circumstance exists in the marketplace and the excess price increase which exceeds X% annually is supported by documentation provided by you and your suppliers and shared with TIPS, if requested. If you agree NOT to increase prices more than 5%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you are awarded 10 points; if 6% to 14%, except when justified by supporting documentation, you receive 1 to 9 points incrementally. Price increases 14% or greater, except when justified by supporting documentation, receive 0 points. increases will be 5% or less annually per question Required Confidentiality Claim Form Required Confidentiality Claim Form This completed form is required by TIPS. By submitting a response to this solicitation you agree to download from the “Attachments” section, complete according to the instructions on the form, then uploading the completed form, with any confidential attachments, if applicable, to the “Response Attachments” section titled “Confidentiality Form” in order to provide to TIPS the completed form titled, “CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIM FORM”. By completing this process, you provide us with the information we require to comply with the open record laws of the State of Texas as they may apply to your proposal submission. If you do not provide the form with your proposal, an award will not be made if your proposal is qualified for an award, until TIPS has an accurate, completed form from you. Read the form carefully before completing and if you have any questions, email Xxxx Xxxxxx at TIPS at xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxx-xxx.xxx 8 Choice of Law clauses with TIPS Members If the vendor is awarded a contract with TIPS under this solicitation, the vendor agrees to make any Choice of Law clauses in any contract or agreement entered into between the awarded vendor and with a TIPS member entity to read as follows: "Choice of law shall be the laws of the state where the customer resides" or words to that effect. 9

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.