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 13:39:27 +0100
Message-ID: <5113A07F.9030506@opera.com>
To: public-html-testsuite@w3.org
On 02/07/2013 01:13 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 07/02/2013 13:08 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 2/7/13 3:55 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> Another option is to capture that in file names (if there's ".manual."
>>> in the file name, then it's manual).
>> (I kinda prefer Jame's suggestion to use an appropriately named
>> directory for manual tests but I'm mostly indifferent.)
> The problem with using a specific directory is that we then lose the
> mapping from the test to the specification section (an important piece
> of information that we're using to assess coverage).

FWIW I don't think that having to special-case directories called 
"non-automated" from such tools is a big problem. And I think it's more 
convenient to have a single directory where you can dump all such files 
rather than having to keep putting .manual. in the name.

I also wonder what one should do with helper files. e.g. if I have a 
HTML file called 001a.html, there presumably needs to be some way to 
determine if that's a top-level test file of some sort or a helper file. 
Note that one helper file could be shared between many tests.
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 12:39:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:32 UTC