W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-testsuite@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Request for Feedback On Test Harness

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:24:03 -0800
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html-testsuite@w3.org
Message-ID: <20101202212403.GA28089@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2010-12-01 14:27 +0100, James Graham wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 02:08 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 
> >However, if people start writing their non-assertion code outside a
> >test() wrapper, isn't the whole point of the test() wrapper defeated
> >and onerror becomes necessary anyway?
> 
> Quite apart from the fact that it is not universally implemented, I
> don't think onerror really solves any problem. At best it is a way
> of saying "something in this file failed". It is important to Opera
> to get a consistent list of tests back from a given file (that is,
> when there is no crash we want all the tests to run, even if there
> was an unexpected exception not associated with an assert). When we
> have imported testsuites that failed to do this, it has caused
> problems.

What sort of problems?  Are these problems really bad enough to
justify making writing tests for this test suite much more
complicated and bad enough to justify prohibiting many existing
tests that browser developers have from being contributed to the
test suite?

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:24:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 December 2010 21:25:00 GMT