- From: Mike Pennisi <mike@bocoup.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:24:14 -0500
- To: public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org
- Cc: Sam Uong <samuong@google.com>
Hello all, I'm interested in helping out with improving coverage for the WebDriver spec in the Web Platform Tests project (I'm the contractor that David referred to in a recent posting [1]). I know that we have a fair number of old tests based on the JSON Wire Protocol that are currently disabled. I'd like to re-use existing work where possible, but I'm also interested in designing a strategy that will encourage test readability and clarity in spec coverage. So before writing too many tests, I was hoping to get input from folks here. Specifically: would anyone object to my not using the "wdclient" library [2]? We definitely need to take steps to lessen duplication, but I'd much prefer to use traditional unit testing patterns for this--"setup/teardown" routines, helper functions, or even pytest's "fixture" feature. This will make the tests simpler and more direct, and that promotes readability (which is good for "drive-by" contributors), traceability (which is good for implementers wondering why a test fails), and specification parity (which is good for test suite maintainers trying to re-assess coverage of a given section of the spec). I think we need to prioritize these qualities over the developer ergonomics provided by a binding library. I'm currently working on a few examples to demonstrate what tests written without a framework could look like; I'll share them here when I have a few workable examples. In the mean time, does anyone here have any thoughts about my reasoning in general? Mike [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/CAAoW2AFG0ZOzu6DyjMAPwZZ9r-He9oTy7dK7f4KhM12p=JToTQ@mail.gmail.com [2] https://github.com/w3c/wdclient
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2017 08:09:53 UTC