This page is not complete yet and need review
In some Peer to Peer tests, the transactions supported by one Role are identical across multiple different tests, yet that Role's partners across those tests are different. This is best illustrated by an example: In Cardiology and Radiology workflow profiles, a scheduling system (Order Filler Role) profiles a worklist to various imaging systems (Modality Roles). A vendors' Order Filler may play the Order Filler Role in Radiology SWF profile and Cardiology ECHO, CATH and STRESS profiles. If the Order Filler may be assigned a Peer to Peer "worklist" test with modalities in each of these profiles. This could result in 12 worklist tests to pass for the Order Filler (3 worklist tests x 4 profiles). Meta Tests allow test definers to eliminate this kind of redundant testing.
Meta tests are special tests are built of equivalent test definitions for a given test role. Actually, we try not to duplicate tests but it can happen that two different tests are the same according the point of view of one test role involved in both. In that case, we merge the two tests under one Meta Test for this specific role.
When a vendor sees a Meta Test in his/her system's test list the equivalent tests are listed within the meta test. He/she is allowed to perform 3 instances of any of the tests within the meta test instead of three instances for each individual test.. That means that if the meta test is composed of 4 tests, the involved actor is expected to have any combination of 3 instances verified,
Meta tests are defined in gazelle under Test Definition --> Meta test list. A Meta test is given a keyword and a short description; then the equivalent tests are linked to the meta test.
As an example, let's take the meta test with keyword Meta_Doc_Repository_Load. This Meta test gathers four tests defined, among other, for the Document Repository actor of the XDS-I.b profile. Each of these tests ask this actor to perform the RAD-68 and ITI-42 transactions against an actor supporting several options. From the point of view of the Document Repository, those four tests are equivalent since we are testing four times the same transactions. Consequently, running only three of the twelve instances it would have had to do is enough to be successfully graded.