Testing plan for location verification

[jlurien]

What type of PR is this?

• tests

What this PR does / why we need it:

Example of testing plan aligned with the guidelines being proposed in camaraproject/Commonalities#158.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #208

Special notes for reviewers:

There are many comments embedded in the test plan to clarify and explain some scenarios. In some cases alternate syntax for the same functionality is used to illustrate the possibilities.

Some points are still open to discussion, such as the degree of specification of the testing plan.

[github-actions]

🦙 MegaLinter status: ✅ SUCCESS

Descriptor	Linter	Files	Fixed	Errors	Elapsed time
✅ ACTION	actionlint	2		0	0.03s
✅ OPENAPI	spectral	3		0	4.99s
✅ REPOSITORY	git_diff	yes		no	0.01s
✅ REPOSITORY	secretlint	yes		no	0.81s
✅ YAML	yamllint	3		0	0.68s

See detailed report in MegaLinter reports

MegaLinter is graciously provided by

[bigludo7]

Checked with @patrice-conil and work for Orange side.
Could be very helpful to provide an extract from that to answer camaraproject/Commonalities#127 in commonalities.

[jlurien]

Checked with @patrice-conil and work for Orange side. Could be very helpful to provide an extract from that to answer camaraproject/Commonalities#127 in commonalities.

Yes, I have to think how to align this with the work in Commonalities and the testing guidelines enhancement. I will be preparing some more detailed proposal towards the dedicated workshop.

[bigludo7]

@jlurien Accordingly to your proposal in Commonalities, this file name should location-verification.feature I guess.

[jlurien]

@jlurien Accordingly to your proposal in Commonalities, this file name should location-verification.feature I guess.

True, I have to update and align my own example with my own proposal :) I am trying to close first the discussion in the proposal

[bigludo7]

LGTM for me
2 very minor typing errors

[jlurien]

@bigludo7 Wee need another explicit approval after the last fixes to merge the PR. Thanks

[bigludo7]

LGTM