W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Testing Pointer Events [Was: Draft agenda for 26 February 2013 call]

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:46:56 +0200
Message-ID: <512C8490.1070002@helsinki.fi>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "public-pointer-events@w3.org" <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
On 02/26/2013 01:37 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Re the testing agenda topic for the Feb 26 call, below are some of my thoughts.
> -AB
> On 2/25/13 7:43 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> 3. Testing Pointer Events v1 spec: testharness.js <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Harness>; use hg for test repository
>> (<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerevents/tests/>) ; test assertions - something like <http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions>?
> We already agreed to use testharness.js, the same harness used by many other WGs to test APIs like Pointer Events.
> Regarding the test repository, I propose using a directory structure similar to the one used by  WebEvents and that would mean directories like the
> following:
> .../hg/pointerevents/tests/pointer-events-v1/
> #Submissions from WG members go in their own directory under the submissions dir:
> .../hg/pointerevents/tests/pointer-events-v1/submissions/
> .../hg/pointerevents/tests/pointer-events-v1/submissions/Google/
> .../hg/pointerevents/tests/pointer-events-v1/submissions/Microsoft/
> .../hg/pointerevents/tests/pointer-events-v1/submissions/Mozilla/
> .../hg/pointerevents/tests/pointer-events-v1/submissions/Nokia/
> #Tests approved by the group are copied to the following directory:
> .../hg/pointerevents/tests/pointer-events-v1/approved/

Sounds ok.

> Since some tests will require some type of user interaction (i.e. not totally automated), it could be useful to clearly "tag" the related file as
> such. For example, name the file something like "manual_feature_blah_blah.html" or put all manual tests in a separate directory (perhaps labeled
> something like "manual_tests"). Of course, metadata within the file could also be used. Any suggestions or preferences here?
Separate directories for manual and automatic tests would be good, IMO.

> Lastly, Cathy created a list of Test Assertions for the Touch Events spec and that was a valuable resource, especially with trying to scope the set of
> tests needed <http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions>. Do people think something like this would be useful?

That would be useful yes (but I doubt I have time to at least lead such effort).

> Is anyone willing to lead
> such an effort or contribute to it?
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 09:47:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:20:24 UTC