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

Re: Marking non-automated tests

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:24:16 +0100
Message-ID: <511372C0.1060702@opera.com>
To: public-html-testsuite@w3.org
On 02/07/2013 09:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I would really rather not. Metadata capture should be designed in such a
> way that it ensures in as much as possible that it won't go out of date.
> External authoritative metadata such as in a text file is guaranteed to
> break. That's why I proposed inlining it (in the most lightweight manner
> I could think of).

Inline metadata has the disadvantage that it is hard to extract 
(requires a HTML parser in this case) and can affect the test itself. 
Therefore I am quite opposed to putting this data in the testcase itself.

> Another option is to capture that in file names (if there's ".manual."
> in the file name, then it's manual).

That option works for me, as long as "javascript" is considered the 
default. Alternatively I am happy with a specific sub-directory for non 
automated tests e.g. /path/to/spec/part/non-automated. Dunno how to 
handle reftests in that scheme (they could go in a /reftest directory of 
course).
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 09:24:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 February 2013 09:24:47 GMT