W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-testsuite@w3.org > February 2011

Request for review/approval of reflection tests

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:31:17 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinDCEoGH2Noyn11Dg5dheob5K2Akt6b5HZJs7Ce@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html-testsuite@w3.org
Some time ago, I wrote a suite of tests for IDL attributes that
reflect in content attributes:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/common-dom-interfaces.html#reflecting-content-attributes-in-idl-attributes

In the last couple of days, I cleaned up the tests, added a bunch more
tests, ported them to testharness.js, and split them into multiple
pages.  The version I propose for review is here:

http://aryeh.name/tests-root/tests/submission/AryehGregor/reflection/reflection-onepage.html

There are also multipage versions that test the same content, but take
less time per page to run.

These versions of the tests don't test anything that's only in the
WHATWG version of the specification, as far as I can tell -- if they
do, that's an error.  (The original version of the tests was written
based on the WHATWG version of the spec rather than the W3C version,
so something might have crept through.)  They do test microdata, since
that's also an HTMLWG deliverable and this is the logical place to
test it.

The tests are divided into two major parts: script and data.  The data
part is mostly split among the various elements-*.js files, and is
around 300 lines.  The script part is in reflection.js,
original-harness.js, and new-harness.js, and is around 1000 lines.
The script runs through the data and auto-generates both tests and
expected results; it works out to somewhere over 60,000 distinct
assertions in around 1500 tests.

I'm not quite done with the tests -- there are some more tests I plan
to add to make them more exhaustive -- but I don't expect large
changes, so it should be suitable for preliminary review.  Even once
approved, the tests will have to be updated regularly for every change
to element attributes, but that should be no big deal.

This will obviously take a substantial amount of work to properly
review, so I welcome suggestions on how to proceed.
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 01:32:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 February 2011 01:32:11 GMT