W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org > September 2013

Re: [testtwf-shenzhen] Need your input: Writing Webapps tests at TestTWF

From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:18:47 -0700
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, "Ms2ger @ Mozilla" <ms2ger@gmail.com>, Alex Kuang <Alex.Kuang@microsoft.com>, "Gary Kacmarcik ()" <garykac@chromium.org>
CC: "public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org" <public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org>, "public-testtwf-planning@w3.org" <public-testtwf-planning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE4F5C2B.3F7FA%rhauck@adobe.com>
- public-testtwf@w3.org
+ public-testtwf-planning@w3.org

On 9/6/13 10:07 AM, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:

>In IRC [1], we discussed a couple of other high priority testing tasks
>for WebApps:
>
>1. Analyze Web Messaging test results
><http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebMessaging>.
>
>2. Analyze Web Sockets test results
><http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebSockets>.
>
>For both of these, it would be helpful to know if the failures are test
>issues and/or implementation issues and then to file bug reports
>accordingly.
>
>My expectation is for the Test Facilitators (Ken and Kris for Sockets
>and Alex for Messaging)  to lead the analysis but that hasn't been done
>in a Public way that I know about [Jungkee and Tina have done this type
>of analysis for the Progress Events and Server-sent Events specs,
>respectively].
>
>If the TTWF can help with the above, that would be great.
>
>-ArtB
>
>[1] <http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/testing/20130906#l-228>
>
>
>On 9/6/13 9:54 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 9/5/13 9:37 PM, ext Rebecca Hauck wrote:
>>> Hi Webapps-testers,
>>>
>>> We're kicking off the planning for the next Test the Web Forward
>>> event, which will be part of TPAC this year, held on Saturday,
>>> November 9 at the same conference center, the Wuzhou Guest House. As
>>> we develop the program, we're trying something different and reaching
>>> out to all of the people in the working groups who have an active
>>> interest and knowledge of the test suites.  We've created a mailing
>>> list for these discussions: public-testtwf-planning@w3.org
>>> <mailto:public-testtwf-planning@w3.org>.  If you respond to this
>>> thread, feel free to drop the testsuite list from the To: line to if
>>> you'd like to transfer conversations to the new planning list.
>>>
>>> We'd love your input!
>>>
>>>   * Which Webapps specs need the most love right now?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Rebecca, All - thanks very much for your e-mail!
>>
>> As to your question, it depends on what you mean by `love` in this
>> context ;-).
>>
>> As one can see from scanning the Testing column of WebApps' status
>> page <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus>, there are many
>> many testing related `opportunities`. I think the following
>> specs/tasks are the `higher` priorities ...
>>
>> * WebIDL - we need someone to Review Cameron's tests
>> 
>><http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/submissions/271/WebIDL/tests/subm
>>issions/heycam/> 
>> (aka <https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/271>).
>>
>> The lack of an approved test suite is one reason WebIDL is blocked
>> from advancing to Proposed Recommendation and the lack of a PR is
>> blocking other specs that have a normative reference for WebIDL. If
>> test case review isn't within TTF's scope, that's unfortunate (albeit
>> understandable) but if TTWF can help here (even if only some subset of
>> tests are reviewed), we would greatly appreciate it.
>>
>> * IndexedDB - we have several `submissions` that need Review:
>>
>> 1. Microsoft 
>> 
>><http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/IndexedDB/submissions/Micr
>>osoft/>. 
>> This is PR <https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/64>.
>>
>> 2. Ms2ger 
>> 
>><http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/IndexedDB/submissions/Ms2g
>>er/>. 
>> This is PR <https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/65>.
>>
>> 3. Opera 
>> 
>><http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/IndexedDB/submissions/Oper
>>a/>. 
>> This is PR <https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/63>.
>>
>> 4. TTWF-Paris 
>> 
>><http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/IndexedDB/submissions/Test
>>TWF_Paris/>. 
>> It appears these are PRs #66-#69
>>
>> (See also this tread
>> 
>><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps-testsuite/2013Jul/000
>>0.html>.)
>>
>> * File API - this spec should soon enter Last Call Working Draft. It
>> has some submissions
>> 
>><http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/FileAPI/tests/submissions/
>>> 
>> (PRs #53 and #54), at least six PRs from TTWF-Shanghai and PubStatus
>> says it is "~20% complete". KrisK is the spec's Test Facilitator so it
>> would be good to get his input re the priority tasks and plans for
>> this test suite. For example, it's not clear if the existing coverage
>> is reasonably good, where are the holes, etc.
>>
>> * DOM3 Events (moving toward a new LCWD) - Gary and Alex are the Test
>> Facilitators and PubStatus says this test suite is "75% complete".
>> Gary, Alex - what is the status of this test suite? If there are some
>> testing gaps you think the TTWF people should address, please let us
>> know the details.
>>
>> * DOM (4/Core) - Aryeh is the Test Facilitator and Ms2ger has been
>> active. PubStatus says this test suite is "50% complete" [I don't
>> recall the provenance of that number ;-)]. Aryeh, Ms2ger - what is the
>> status of this test suite? If there are some testing gaps you think
>> the TTWF people should address, please let us know the details.
>>
>> Lastly, although WebApps will accept tests for any of its specs, I
>> think our coverage for the specs listed in the following document is
>> what I will call `reasonable as is`
>> <http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop>.
>>
>> If others within WebApps have feedback, please speak up.
>>
>> -Thanks, ArtB
>>
>>
>>>   * Are you planning on being at TPAC and able to come support new
>>>     test authors? (If we've already contacted you individually, you
>>>     can skip this part  but still welcome your input on the rest of
>>> this)
>>>   * If you aren't able to attend, are you in a timezone that is
>>>     conducive to being online to review tests during the event?
>>>   * Do you have any other suggestions to test hacking projects at the
>>>     event? (for example, are there any existing suites out there that
>>>     could be converted and/or contributed to the W3C?)
>>>
>>> Extra awesome if you have something to contribute here AND you speak
>>> or write Chinese.
>>>
>>> Please note that we'll do our best to incorporate your feedback, but
>>> it will depend on how well we can support a particular testing area
>>> at the event with experts, reviewers, sample materials, etc.  If you
>>> do give us suggestions, we'll likely follow up with you for help in
>>> getting them into the program.
>>>
>>> Also, you may soon see that I'm sending a similar email to some of
>>> the other test suite lists. Sorry for the duplicate mails if you're
>>> subscribed to the others; I wanted to keep threads somewhat separated
>>> by WG/topic.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your input. 'Hope to you see you in Shenzhen!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Rebecca & the Test the Web Forward Team
>>
>
Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 17:16:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:57:41 UTC