Re: Tests for non-default configurations

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:19 AM, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:
> At the present time I think we will take the opinion that such tests
> relating to features that are not on by default and will not become the
> default in the future are not worth upstreaming, and keep them in a
> mozilla-specific directory. Is this acceptable to everyone or are there
> situations where sharing such tests is valuable? If there are, how do you
> want to communicate the information that a specific setting is required?

I think this is the right position to take when they will not become
enabled (or easily enableable, even!).

OTOH, we have other features which are currently tested by each
browser separately that we have no common infrastructure for—most
obviously printing—and that's likely something we should tackle
somehow. (Notably, csswg-test already solves this with its metadata.)
I don't know if we want a "-print" suffix (would "-manual-print" even
make sense? "-visual-print" likely would however, given we can't test
everything using reftests…), or if we want to do it using
"reftest-print" as a class on the root element as Mozilla currently do
(but obviously then we can only test things we can with reftests). I
don't know if there's anything else, apart from print, that we should
care about?

/gsnedders

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2016 16:50:30 UTC