Re: Canvas Test Submission approval/feedback request

On 10/05/2010 10:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:29:47 +0200, Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>
>> http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/canvas/canvas_pixelManipulation_imagedata_002.htm
>>
>
> I don't think assigning to readonly should throw per Web IDL.

Indeed; see section 4.5.4 [1]

> As for the others, are they not covered by Philip's test suite? That
> seems a much better place as that is also automated whereas these are not.

Indeed. It is important to us, and will eventually be important to the 
progress of the spec, that tests are suitable for simple automation. 
Visual tests are not suitable for such automation. Given the problems 
that such tests have caused in trying to get CSS 2.1 IRs and the 
problems they cause in our test systems, we don't feel that we can 
approve such tests unless they come with special justification as to why 
other test types (javascript tests, reftests) could not be used instead.

With that in mind:

http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/canvas/canvas_text_font_002.htm

Not automated, and no justification given.

http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/canvas/canvas_text_fillText_001.htm

Not automated, and no justification given.

http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/canvas/canvas_pixelManipulation_imagedata_001.htm

404

http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/canvas/canvas_pixelManipulation_imagedata_002.htm

Incorrect, as discussed.

http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/canvas/canvas_images_drawImage_001.htm

Not automated, and no justification given.

http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/canvas/canvas_colorsAndStyles_createPattern_001.htm

I think this is OK. Seems to be the same as 2d.pattern.repeat.undefined 
from Philip's testsuite.

http://test.w3.org/html/tests/submission/Microsoft/canvas/canvas_canvasElement_001.htm

I think this is OK. Seems to be the same as toDataURL.zerosize from 
Philip's testsuite.


In summary, there are two tests here that are correct and suitable for 
the testsuite, but duplicate existing tests. Therefore I don't think 
they should be approved; keeping duplicates out in general will be 
difficult, but we should try not to introduce gratuitous redundancy.

As an aside, is there a plan to use the testharness.js API for writing 
tests? I thought we were trying to converge on a common API for as many 
tests as possible?

[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#put

Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 09:35:01 UTC