|
- %&tex
- \subsection{Test Protocol}
- The last step of the preparation phase is to design tests.
- The tests are designed to validate if the system meets the specifications.
- While defining the tests, it became clear that part of the specifications was not explicitly defined.
- As the specifications were made before the design decissisions in the initial design and the feature definition, the specifications did not take that information into account.
- Updating the specifications after the design decissions was overlooked during the specification of the design plan.
- To ensure the repeatibility of the tests, this step starts with specifying the order of operation and improved specifications.
-
- \subsubsection{Defining the Order of Operation}
- There are two modes of operation: writing and wiping.
- Defining the order of operation also distributes the responsibility between the different components.
- The writing operation can be split in the following steps:
- \begin{order}{Writing}
- \emph{Precondition:} Marker as end-effector.
- \begin{enumerate}
- \item Move cable driven carriage to position of characters.
- \item Write three characters with the SCARA.
- \item Repeat step 1 and 2 till the Tweet is on the board.
- \item Move carriage away from the text on the board.
- \end{enumerate}
- \end{order}
-
- The other operation is wiping.
- This is similar to the operation of writing with the following steps:
- \begin{order}{Wiping}
- \emph{Precondition:} Wiper as end-effector.
- \begin{enumerate}
- \item Move cable driven carriage to position of characters.
- \item Clear the area in reach of the SCARA.
- \item Repeat step 1 and 2 till the Tweet is removed from on the board.
- \end{enumerate}
- \end{order}
- Furthermore, switching between the states requires the tool to be switched.
- However, at this point, it is not known how tools will be switched.
- Therefore, the order of operation is determined during the development of the end-effector.
- Additionally, the missing order of operation for the end-effector did not result in difficulty while defining the tests.
-
- \subsubsection{Improving Specifications}
- Based on the order of operation, the following specifications were added to the list in \autoref{sec:specifications}:
- \begin{specification}
- \begin{enumerate}
- \setcounter{enumi}{12}
- \item While writing, the SCARA shall have a writing speed of at least 1.5 characters per second.
- \item When the Carriage/base of the SCARA is at a static position, the SCARA shall be able to write at least three characters at that position.
- \item When the SCARA finished writing at their current position, the Carriage shall move the SCARA to it's next position where it can write the subsequent characters.
- \item When the SCARA has to be moved to a new position, the Carriage shall perform this movement within one second.
- \item When the system changes from writing to wiping or vice-versa, the SCARA and End-effector should change the tool within ten seconds.
- \end{enumerate}
- \end{specification}
- These additional specifications are also based on the combined system decission that was made in section \autoref{sec:initialdesign}.
- These specifications distribute responsibility between sub-components.
-
- \subsubsection{Setting up the tests}
- With the updated specifications it was possible to create a number of test cases.
- In total there are five small test cases and four large test cases.
- The small tests cover a sub-system and the large tests apply on the complete systems.
- Each tests has a list of specifications that are covered with the test and for smaller tests the subsystem under test is also determined.
- With a short description it is described how the test should be performed.
-
- One of the small tests focusses on the speed and range requirements of the SCARA:
- \setcounter{testcounter}{0}
- \begin{test}[label={rect}]{Small rectangle}
- During this test, a rectangle will be drawn on the whiteboard using the SCARA.
- This rectangle is will be at least \SI{50}{\milli\meter} high and \SI{70}{\milli\meter} wide, such that three characters fit within the rectangle.
- To test the speed requirements, the rectangle should be drawn within one second.
- \tcbline
- \begin{description}
- \item[Features:] SCARA
- \item[Specifications:] 3, 7, 11, 13
- \item[Results:] The test passes when:
- \begin{itemize}
- \item Rectangle height is at least \SI{50}{\milli\meter}
- \item Rectangle width is at least \SI{70}{\milli\meter}
- \item Completion time is less than \SI{1}{\second}
- \end{itemize}
- \end{description}
- \end{test}
- Repeatability is tested in one of the large system wide tests:
- \setcounter{testcounter}{5}
- \begin{test}[label={rep}]{Repeatability}
- This tests if the Writer can reach draw repeatedly on the same position on the board.
- The system will start with drawing multiple \SI{60}{\milli\meter} squares on the board in a random location.
- To test the repeatability, a circle with a \SI{55}{\milli\meter} diameter must be drawn inside of the square.
- This should be done with twenty squares in an area of at least \SI{1000}{\milli\meter} x \SI{300}{\milli\meter}.
- The drawing order of each square must be different from the drawing order of circles, this ensures that the Cable bot makes a different approach path.
- \tcbline
- \begin{description}
- \item[Features:] SCARA, Cable Bot
- \item[Specifications:] 3, 4, 9, 11
- \item[Results:]
- The test passes when:
- \begin{itemize}
- \item Each square has a circle drawn inside.
- \item The squares and circles are within \SI{5}{\milli\meter} of their given dimensions.
- \item All the circles are completely within their corresponding square.
- \end{itemize}
- \end{description}
- \end{test}
- The complete set of system tests is included in \autoref{app:test_specification}.
-
- \subsubsection{Evaluation}
- This step was completed without many difficulties.
- Which includes the revision of the earlier specifications and definition of orders of operation.
- Indicating that I overlooked details while defining the specifications in \autoref{sec:specifications}.
- According to the design plan as described in \autoref{chap:analysis}, I should go back and review those specifications.
- Followed by reviewing all steps after the specifications.
- However, this complete review is not practical and extremely time consuming.
- The point here is, looking at the evaluations of this and previous steps, that chosen design strategy is not feasible, especially as a novice designer.
- In \autoref{chap:case_evaluation} I will evaluate this with more detail.
-
- During the analysis, I expected more specific tests.
- Each test could then be used as a milestone during the development of the system.
- Every time detail is added, an additional test passes.
- Or a test fails, notifying that something went wrong and should be investigated.
- Creating such specific tests relies on the details in the design of the system.
- The current design is basic and these details are added during the feature implementation.
- Nevertheless, this step resulted in a set of tests that cover all specifications and features that are specified in this preparation phase.
- When all the tests pass, the system should meet all the requirements.
|