W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2010

RE: Conversion of MS CSS 2.1 tests to reftests

From: John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:54:57 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C340671BECD4364E8F9EBA27E8E2313219D2C8C9@DF-M14-04.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-css-testsuite-request@w3.org [mailto:public-css-testsuite-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Boris Zbarsky
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:19 AM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Conversion of MS CSS 2.1 tests to reftests
> 
> On 9/21/10 1:34 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > So let's be very
> > conservative and call it 5 days. That is still substantially less,
> > imo, than building an automation system, testing it, converting part - or all ?
> - of the testcases to reftests (or whatever input format the automation
> expects), finding any mistakes from that process etc.
> 
> That last part, I agree with.  I just disagree with the blanket assertion that it's
> possible to run the test suite and analyze the failures in 3 days for one person
> in its current state.

Again, though, I wouldn't expect you to analyze the failures. I would expect that you run the suite, pass/fail every test, submit the IR, then farm out the analysis and follow up with the WG if necessary or log bugs against the browser - whatever is appropriate.

-John
> 
> Also, note that my comments here are my personal comments, NOT
> representing Mozilla in any way.  If there is an official Mozilla statement here,
> it'll be clearly labeled as such, I assure you....
> 
> -Boris
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 18:55:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 September 2010 18:55:39 GMT