Re: DOM test suite report, first pass

On 31/03/2014 17:24 , James Graham wrote:
> On 31/03/14 13:21, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>    • We need to go through the list with a fine-toothed comb, but it's
>> clear that some tests, while valid, shouldn't be there. For instance,
>> ProgressEvent isn't defined in the DOM. The "historical" tests check for
>> removal of some parts of the DOM that are being investigated for
>> removal, but even the spec says that it is not yet clear if they should
>> be removed. I think it's asking too much that these be removed. The
>> "interface" and "exceptions" failures are in fact WebIDL failures. There
>> needs to be more work on the test suite to make it more correct in these
>> aspects.
>
> For many of these cases where the test is valid, but it's unreasonable
> to use it as an exit requirement, please don't delete the test from the
> repository. Instead maintain a list of tests that you don't expect to
> use for the Process and the reason that they aren't being used.

In no case would I expect to remove a test from the suite, unless it 
were apparent that it is completely wrong, or rather not even wrong 
(i.e. testing something that isn't related to any specification).

There are two things we can do process-wise. One is to simply document 
that some tests go well beyond the requirements for implementability and 
can be safely ignored (my preferred option because it's less work), the 
other is to merge the DOM tests to the CR branch, and remove the faulty 
ones there.

In either case that's all process-wrangling that I wouldn't want to 
bother people with. But the important thing is: I sure won't be killing 
tests.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 16:33:19 UTC