Difference between revisions of "User:Ilnar.salimzyan/On testing"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
<pre> |
<pre> |
||
<selimcan> I was thinking of at least keeping a list of lexicons which stems can continue with |
<selimcan> I was thinking of at least keeping a list of lexicons which stems can continue with |
||
(i.e. directly) separate in lexc |
|||
<selimcan> giving examples for each |
<selimcan> giving examples for each |
||
<selimcan> I mean, right before the stems section, a litst of N1, N2, N-RUS, V-TV, etc |
<selimcan> I mean, right before the stems section, a litst of N1, N2, N-RUS, V-TV, etc |
||
| Line 65: | Line 66: | ||
<selimcan> Lexicon : Description : Example |
<selimcan> Lexicon : Description : Example |
||
<selimcan> N1 : commoun nouns : бақша |
<selimcan> N1 : commoun nouns : бақша |
||
<selimcan> N5 : nouns loaned from Russian (often don't obey the syngarmonism laws, that's why |
<selimcan> N5 : nouns loaned from Russian (often don't obey the syngarmonism laws, that's why |
||
should be kept separate) : актив |
|||
<selimcan> N-COMPUND-PX : compound nouns with 3p possessive at the last noun |
<selimcan> N-COMPUND-PX : compound nouns with 3p possessive at the last noun |
||
<selimcan> firespeaker, you know, like we do for adjectives, but for only lexicons we have |
<selimcan> firespeaker, you know, like we do for adjectives, but for only lexicons we have |
||
<selimcan> err, "for all lexicons" I mean |
<selimcan> err, "for all lexicons" I mean |
||
<selimcan> That kind of comments for all lexicons (stems can link to) we have, and in one place, |
<selimcan> That kind of comments for all lexicons (stems can link to) we have, and in one place, |
||
so that whoever adding stems to the lexicon doesn't have to look at the entire morphology |
|||
description in lexc |
|||
<selimcan> :( |
<selimcan> :( |
||
<selimcan> Plus a full paradigm of one example linking to that lexicon in apertium-foo/tests/morphotactics or somewhere else</pre> |
<selimcan> Plus a full paradigm of one example linking to that lexicon in apertium-foo/tests/morphotactics or somewhere else</pre> |
||
Revision as of 04:19, 8 March 2015
Test-driven language pair development or on testing strategy in Apertium
========================================================================
Some terminology
----------------
# Acceptance tests define when a language pair or a particular sub-module (like
# morphological transducer or CG) are done. That is, they define the
# requirements for what you are going to develop and are written in the process
# of communicating with "stakeholders"/mentors or anyone funding the
# development.
# Unit tests are written by programmers for programmers. They describe how the
# system works and what the structure and behavior of the code is.
# Integration tests, as the name suggests, test whether components (in our case,
# these are modules like morphological transducers, disambiguators, lexical
# selection rules and transfer rules) are successfully integrated into a system
# (=language pair). In case of a language pair, you can think of the acceptance
# tests for that language pair as integration tests, since they test how modules
# of the language pair integrate into a complete machine translation system.
Overview
--------
Testing an Apertium MT system
/ \
/ \
/ \
Acceptance Unit tests
tests |
/ testing the output
/ of each module
/ |
* Regression-Pending tests Morphological--Acceptance: * recall or coverage
on the wiki transducers * precision
* Corpus test | \ * # of stems
* upper bound for WER | --Unit: * morphophonology
* upper bounds for [*@#] | * morphotactics
errors ConstraintGr----Acceptance: * ambig. rate before&after
* Testvoc (has to be clean) | \ * precision
| \ * # of rules
+ | ----Unit: * INPUT/OUTPUT comments for each
| rule
numbers: Lexical-----Acceptance: * ambig. rate before&after
* of stems in the bidix selection * precision
* of lrx rules <-> ambiguity | \ * # of rules
rate before and after | ----Unit: * INPUT/OUTPUT comments for each
* transfer rules | rule
Transfer------Acceptance: * wiki tests for phrases and
+ \ sentences
\ * "testvoc-lite" tests for
(gisting evaluation) \ single-words
----Unit: * INPUT/OUTPUT comments in the headers
of rules
<selimcan> I was thinking of at least keeping a list of lexicons which stems can continue with
(i.e. directly) separate in lexc
<selimcan> giving examples for each
<selimcan> I mean, right before the stems section, a litst of N1, N2, N-RUS, V-TV, etc
<selimcan> *list
<selimcan> with short comment and examples for each
<selimcan> Lexicon : Description : Example
<selimcan> N1 : commoun nouns : бақша
<selimcan> N5 : nouns loaned from Russian (often don't obey the syngarmonism laws, that's why
should be kept separate) : актив
<selimcan> N-COMPUND-PX : compound nouns with 3p possessive at the last noun
<selimcan> firespeaker, you know, like we do for adjectives, but for only lexicons we have
<selimcan> err, "for all lexicons" I mean
<selimcan> That kind of comments for all lexicons (stems can link to) we have, and in one place,
so that whoever adding stems to the lexicon doesn't have to look at the entire morphology
description in lexc
<selimcan> :(
<selimcan> Plus a full paradigm of one example linking to that lexicon in apertium-foo/tests/morphotactics or somewhere else
