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

Re: Proposal: moving tests to GitHub

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:13:15 -0500
Message-ID: <510AA62B.6080507@nokia.com>
To: ext Odin HÝrthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org
On 1/24/13 1:22 PM, ext Odin HÝrthe Omdal wrote:
> Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Before we start a CfC to change WebApps' agreed testing process 
>> [Testing], please make a clear proposal regarding the submission 
>> process, approval process, roles, etc. as is defined in [Testing] and 
>> its references. (My preference is for you to document the new 
>> process, expectations, etc. in WebApps' Public wiki, rooted at 
>> <http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/>).
> I've written (well, copied and changed) a document at:
>     http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Submitting_tests
> It might not have everything required right now, but I think it's a 
> good start. :-)

Thanks Odin (and sorry for the delayed reply)!

As I said during one of the testing breakouts in Lyon, ultimately I 
suspect the saying "beggars can't be choosy" will trump. However, AFAIK, 
currently, only one of WebApps' thirty active specs actually has an 
"outside" contribution. As such, and without any information about a 
relatively high probability we will get contributions from others, this 
move still seems like a lot of "make work".

Before a CfC is started, I would like to hear from Kris and/or PLH re 
how the move went for the HTMLWG. For instance, were there any some 
major "gotchas", were there any negative side-effects, etc. Kris, PLH - 
would you please provide a short summary of the move?

I agree with James and Tobie re the name and structure issue. James' 
proposal was fine or something a bit shorter like "webapi-tests". I also 
wonder if it would be useful to separate the DOM tests (e.g. 
"dom-tests") although I don't feel strongly on that.

Re section numbers - that seems like make work, especially for short-ish 
specs (e.g. Progress Events). I think using section numbers should be 
optional (and that metadata be included in the tests themselves). Are 
you actually proposing to add section numbers for every test suite that 
you copy?

What is the expectation for what I will characterize as "legacy" specs 
like Marcos' widget test suites? Marcos?

Test Facilitators and Test Submitters - if you haven't already provided 
input on Odin's proposal, please do so. My expectation is that Odin and 
the other volunteers will do all of the copying work.

-Thanks, AB
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 17:13:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:52 UTC