W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-testsuite@w3.org > February 2013

RE: Marking non-automated tests

From: Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 22:36:57 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "'public-html-testsuite@w3.org'" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0A605FCDA3A4DC45A98B0DDD1C5351A705524C5C@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
We've discussed adding meta-data to the list a few times....each time we have decided this was not a good option to pursue.
That said it's still important to have this data so that it could be consumed.

I'd suggest that we have a text file (format/file type is not a concern of mine) that holds this 'meta data' and other metadata (for example test is approved).

-Kris

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:24 AM
To: 'public-html-testsuite@w3.org'
Subject: Marking non-automated tests

Hi gang,

I've been running some analyses on the tests we have in the suite, and I'm noticing a rather large bunch of tests that aren't properly automated. I knew there were some, but I hadn't realised it was this many.

A lot of those I've seen can be converted to testharness, and should be. 
I'll be producing a list of all conversion candidates.

But some tests just have to remain as manual or reftests. We've had some conventions to mark those up, but nothing seems to have been used consistently at this point.

The existing conventions seem to be mostly about using <meta>. I was wondering if we shouldn't just use something simpler. How about

   <html data-manual>

?

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 22:38:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 February 2013 22:38:23 GMT