W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2012

Re: border-001-018: updates and conversions

From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:38:30 -0700
To: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC765BE0.19242%rhauck@adobe.com>
Thanks for taking a look at these so quickly. I pulled them out of the
submitted folder so as not to disrupt the build system tonight. I guess
most of these would be retracted anyway given that that are not ref
testable.    


But this does raise another question- are there guidelines on renaming
files to avoid collision like this?  Keep the old, rename the new? Append
or prepend something to the root name?



On 9/12/12 3:10 PM, "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:

>
>Le Mer 12 septembre 2012 15:02, Rebecca Hauck a écrit :
>> Hi Gérard,
>>
>> I've updated the first batch of borders tests to include CSS3 spec links
>> and convert wherever possible. Since you've been doing a lot of
>> conversions, I wanted to have you spot-check this first batch to make
>> sure the changes I've made are ok.
>
>You may want to have a look at this list of unreftestable tests:
>
>http://wiki.csswg.org/test/reftest#unreftestable-tests
>
>in which I had double as border-style listed at item 20.
>
>
>> Most/all of the tests in this suite are testing the border shorthand
>> property ­ not specific property values, just various permutations &
>> syntax.  I took the liberty of changing dashed borders to double in
>> order to easily create references. Can you confirm that's ok?  The rest
>> of the changes I made were smaller ­ increased width of the border,
>> change "blue" to "green" in some cases.  Also, the wording of the assert
>> I changed from "two boxes" to "two concentric squares" (for example).
>> The latter is less ambiguous.
>>
>> The tests where I only added spec links I pushed back to the approved
>> directory:  border 001, 003, 005, 006, 008. (maybe these can be flipped
>> back to Approved now?)
>>
>> The ones I converted and changed are forked and pushed to my submitted
>> folder: rhauck/submitted/css3-backgroundsborders:  border 002, 004, 007,
>> 009-018.
>
>Here, I'm pretty sure this is not okay. There are now 2 unique tests
>with the same border-002 filename and they are different.
>
>http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/testcase/border-002/
>
>If we leave things as they are, then I believe the build system will not
>succeed tonight.
>
>
>> Also, one last question:  can you clarify the proper tagging I should be
>> doing in the subject line for other mails of the nature?  Should I be
>> adding [RC6] to them as you do?
>
>
>Identifying tests with their respective RC collections is going to be
>useful if there are eventual future RC. If an email discusses
>difficulties, problems of a specific test in, say, [RC3], then this
>is/will be useful as anyone can look into [RC4] for such test to see if
>and how the difficulties, problems were corrected (or not).
>
>There will be an [RC7] for sure, possibly this fall.
>
>----------
>
>One thing I did not do so far is list all the tests for which I have an
>entirely new versions (which I mentioned in Shepherd) and that are
>proposed as replacements. Some that I remember:
>
>http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/c414-flt-ln-000.x
>ht
>
>http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/c414-flt-ln-001.x
>ht
>
>http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/c414-flt-ln-003.x
>ht
>
>http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ltr-borders-001.x
>ht
>
>Gérard
>-- 
>Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:
>http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/
>
>CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011:
>http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html
>
>CSS 2.1 test suite harness:
>http://test.csswg.org/harness/
>
>Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite:
>http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contr
>ibutions-css21-testsuite.html
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 22:37:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 September 2012 22:38:00 GMT