Re: Tentative tests.

This plan sounds good to me.

In terms of the semantics of directories, haven't we said previously that a
"defacto" sub-directory (or filename suffix) is OK for tests which pass in
practice but aren't properly specified yet?

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org>
wrote:

> I'll withdraw that suggestion. What I think we need is some way to make
> sure that tentative tests don't stay around forever, but I think we could
> simply use the Git history to see when they were most recently changed and
> figure out what to do with them. So if the commit message and PR has all
> the relevant information, I think there's no need to also put it in the
> test file.
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:02 PM Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017, 11:40 AM Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> > 1.  Put the tests in a new file with a `-tentative.*` suffix (e.g.
>>>>> > `//content-security-policy/script-src/new-test-tentative.sub.html`).
>>>>>
>>>>> This doesn't mix with -manual. Not sure if that's a problem, but
>>>>> dot-delimiting might also be okay?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure. `.tentative.*` is fine by me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> > 2.  Put the tests in a `tentative` subdirectory of an existing suite
>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>> > `//content-security-policy/tentative/new-script-src-test.sub.html`).
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't assign meaning to directories elsewhere other than informally
>>>>> "resources" / "support". At least, as far as I know. I think I'd
>>>>> prefer just the one convention.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like the directory simply for grouping. If there's a new feature with
>>>> a lot of tests, the suffixes won't sort together as a collected bunch of
>>>> tests that folks who haven't hopped on board with the feature should be
>>>> ignoring.
>>>>
>>>> But if I'm the only one who likes that idea, I'm happy to drop it in
>>>> favor of the simplicity of a single approach.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like this idea as well, but am also fine with starting simple and
>>> adding directory support later based of real world experience.
>>>
>>> Glad to see this happen. Thanks for following up.
>>>
>>
>> `.tentative.*` going once... going twice... If there are no fundamental
>> objections, then I'm going to start landing patches using this convention.
>> :)
>>
>> Philip suggested elsewhere that it might be a good idea to ensure that
>> the tentative test files in some way refer to the discussion that they're
>> in support of. I could imagine formalizing that as a `<link rel="help"
>> href="[link to GitHub issue/PR]">`. WDYT?
>>
>> -mike
>>
>