W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Simplifying metadata

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:19:41 +0900
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>, "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5630851D.9090702@inkedblade.net>
On 10/27/2015 09:50 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
>
>>     f) Test assertions… are we doing anything we this, beyond what we use specification links for? If not, we should stop
>>     requiring them.
>
>     These are for test reviewers to help understand what the test is trying to do. It’s often not obvious and can be helpful.
>
>
> In my experience I don't find the test assertions help much—a few comments places at the relevant places in the test would be
> far more helpful to understand what's going on IMO.

This is supposed to be for an overall comment of what is being tested,
and is really important to me as a reviewer when I'm trying to understand
what the test is trying to do. A lot of testers don't write good assertions,
(but in some cases the same people write perfectly fine HTML comments that
explain what the test is supposed to be testing) so maybe we want to find a
better way to encourage this information.

Basically, any non-trivial function should have documentation describing
what it does (at a higher fidelity than just the function name), and
exactly the same way any non-trivial test should have documentation
describing what it tests (at a higher fidelity than the filename).

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2015 08:20:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 28 October 2015 08:20:27 UTC