W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-test-infra@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Repository layout

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 12:48:15 +0300
Message-ID: <CAKA+Ax=2xYYhWHsU8v7bmTevXGY1cLPw9adcjH9c0md62eeqng@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Cc: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>, "<public-test-infra@w3.org>" <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:46 PM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:
> I don't think we want a build step. In our ideal scenario, we clone the
> repository, create a local branch with any patches we need to get things
> working in our test setup, and then update the testsuite with a simple
> fetch/rebase (plus whatever work is needed on our end to add any new tests).
> Everything that requires a QA to set up a build environment and mess around
> getting the output files from the build into a local repository that's not
> just a clone of the upstream is an impediment to keeping the tests up to
> date. We have a lot of experience with testsuites that are hard to update,
> and it all suggests that the probability of someone doing the update falls
> dramatically as the complexity of the operation increases.

Mozilla imports testharness.js tests in a similar fashion -- clone the
source repo, copy any files indicated in the manifests, and that's it.
 (We don't have a way to maintain local patches, since
testharnessreport.js serves our need well enough.)  So at least for
testharness.js tests, I also don't think we need a separate build
step.
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 09:49:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 May 2012 09:49:09 GMT