W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-testsuite@w3.org > November 2009

RE: Test Case Template/Meta Data

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:57:35 -0500
To: Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>
Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>, "'public-html-testsuite@w3.org'" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1258999055.20599.10.camel@chacal>
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 00:10 +0000, Kris Krueger wrote:
> >From my understanding of source options CVS is the only one in place today
> and available from the w3c.  If the w3c has other options that are supported
> by their systems team, I'm open to switching at some point in the future.
> Maybe Mike or Philippe could comment?

Our systeam folks are working on setting a git server, which we could
use as soon as mid-December. However, they're still arguing between git
and mercurial...


> -Kris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Graham [mailto:jgraham@opera.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 3:35 PM
> To: Kris Krueger
> Cc: Geoffrey Sneddon; 'public-html-testsuite@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: Test Case Template/Meta Data
> Quoting Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>:
> > How about we agree on doing this...
> >
> > Some test cases (the example we have been using) are too complex
> > to link back to a very specific part of the HTML5 spec.
> >
> > Though we could at least categorize this test case as a complex
> > parser test and link it back to '9.2 Parsing HTML documents'.
> Yes, we should undoubtedly categorise tests at a high level. I suggest  
> simply using the filesystem structure to do this, so we would have  
> different folders for say parsing, canvas, media elements, and so on.  
> This would basically follow the high level structure of the spec.  
> Within each folder we could have more structure probably initially  
> some subdivison depending on the type of the test (some tests might  
> use javascript, some might be reftests, etc.) and possibly further  
> levels of nesting to account for finer grained structure in the  
> section in question.
> > A template could be used with an xml file checked into CVS. So that
> > it would be possible to generate a test page similar to below using
> > script.
> On the subject of CVS (but somewhat at a tangent to the rest of this  
> thread), I have a strong preference to avoid CVS and use something  
> like mercurial if at all possible. I know that some of the other  
> testing work inside the W3C uses mercurial for version control so  
> hopefully it's possible for us too.
> The main reason I have for preferring a DVCS is that the use (and to a  
> lesser extent, development) of the testsuite is essentially  
> distributed. For example Opera will want to use the tests for our  
> internal regression testing. This means taking the testsuite, possibly  
> making some modifications so that it talks to our regression detection  
> system, and keeping the modified testsuite in our local VCS. With a  
> DVCS changes to the master copy can easilly be pulled and applied to  
> the local clone. With a centralized VCS this is not quite so trivial.
> I also generally find mercurial nicer to work with than CVS :)
Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 17:57:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:28 UTC