US-RBC System Model

[BaseliyosJacob]

As a Product i need a RBC System Model for simulation and test issues.

[jokaICS]

A few newbie questions:
What is the relationship between the User Stories 13-16 and the Test Scenario Utrecht Amsterdam?
For example, the story description for US 13 mentions the balises 204 and 202, but I don't find them in the XREF files for the track. Or are these just dummy IDs?
Will there be a separate test model for each user story?

The reason for my asking: what is the external trigger for the RBC-System to revoke the MA?

[JakobGartner]

Hello,

we use the infrastructure of Amsterdam Utrecht as a basis for our user stories.
The earlier set of user stories is just about nominal behaviour and is based on JRU data that we actually have from real train passes.

In the next iteration, we will use the infrastructure again, but create own message/packet sequences to drive the more elaborate scenarios.

The RBC model and the message/packet transport are handled by the RBC model, by using the TrackMessages library which supports (for now) the packets and messages as in the XREF.

On 29 Jul 2015, at 17:06, Johannes Kastner notifications@github.com wrote:

A few newbie questions:
What is the relationship between the User Stories 13-16 and the Test Scenario Utrecht Amsterdam?
For example, the story description for US 13 mentions the balises 204 and 202, but I don't find them in the XREF files for the track. Or are these just dummy IDs?
Will there be a separate test model for each user story?

The reason for my asking: what is the external trigger for the RBC-System to revoke the MA?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #579 (comment).

[jokaICS]

In the next iteration, we will use the infrastructure again, but create own message/packet sequences to drive the more elaborate scenarios.

Thanks :) Just to clarify: the interface of the RBC node will remain unchanged; in particular, triggering MA revocation will be realized via the inTriggeredRadioTrackTrainMessage input. But we will possibly need separate story wrappers for the US 13-16 tests. Furthermore, the implementation of this issue requires new trigger IDs and extending the TrackMessages library, correct?

[JakobGartner]

I think we should discuss this in detail on Monday.
In particular we should analyse if the current RBC design is generic enough.
Some data types are “in work” for the next iteration, especially the TrainToTrack direction.

On 29 Jul 2015, at 18:20, Johannes Kastner notifications@github.com wrote:

In the next iteration, we will use the infrastructure again, but create own message/packet sequences to drive the more elaborate scenarios.

Thanks :) Just to clarify: the interface of the RBC node will remain unchanged; in particular, triggering MA revocation will be realized via the inTriggeredRadioTrackTrainMessage input. But we will possibly need separate story wrappers for the US 13-16 tests. Furthermore, the implementation of this issue requires new trigger IDs and extending the TrackMessages library, correct?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #579 (comment).