W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2018

Re: Transition Request: WebDriver to Proposed Recommendation

From: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 10:26:59 -0400
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, W3C Comm Team <w3t-comm@w3.org>
Cc: David Burns <dburns@mozilla.com>, Simon Stewart <shs@rocketpoweredjetpants.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, chairs@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <e5775a5a-3d42-b4ae-aaf9-8aca7261e4a2@w3.org>
Thanks Mike, David, and Simon for the further explanation of the test 
results in the updated implementation report.  In particular, you 
explained that the updated report has tests for some level 2 features 
planned for a future specification.

With that explanation, I am satisfied that WebDriver has met its 
Candidate Recommendation exit criteria and has satisfied the 
requirements to advance to Proposed Recommendation.

On behalf of the Director, WebDriver is approved to advance to Proposed 
Recommendation.

-Ralph

On 2018-04-09 07:53 PM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
> 
> Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, 2018-03-26 16:11 -0400:
>> Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/456cc9f1-a90a-4d42-e1ea-869cf2f1b1c4@w3.org>
>> ...
>> In looking at these test results I see that the Add Cookie feature has no
>> implementation reported as passing any of the tests.  The failure
>> documentation does not explain why this should be considered acceptable.
>>
>> Please explain.
> 
> We’ve since realized that the test results we’d included previously for the
> IEDriver implementation weren’t from the very latest version, which does
> actually pass the Add Cookie tests.
> 
> So we re-ran the tests against that IEDriver version, and then regenerated
> the results, which are now reflected here:
> 
> https://w3c.github.io/webdriver/results/html/all.html#test-file-27
> 
> Thanks for catching that oversight so that it could be corrected.
> 
> And especially now that’s been corrected, we’re satisfied we’ve met our
> exit criteria with regard to demonstrating solid implementation experience
> and implementability of the spec — so we’re eager to move on to PR and Rec.
> 
>    –Mike
> 
> Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, 2018-03-26 16:11 -0400:
>> Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/456cc9f1-a90a-4d42-e1ea-869cf2f1b1c4@w3.org>
>>
>> On 2018-03-23 09:46 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
>>> This is an updated request from the Browser Testing and Tools Working Group
>>> to transition the WebDriver spec to Proposed Recommendation.
>>>
>>> This request is a follow-up to the initial request, which is archived at
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2017Sep/0000.html, sent at
>>> the beginning of September of last year.
>>>
>>> This request aligns with decisions that came out of face-to-face discussions
>>> at TPAC among the team and the group. In particular, it was recognized that at
>>> the time the original request was made, we were lacking some details about test
>>> results. So this updated request adds those details — which are as follows:
>>>
>>> Complete results for all tests:
>>>
>>> https://w3c.github.io/webdriver/results/html/all.html
>>>
>>> Complete documentation on all current failures:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13LGSCDf5o3xLj9RCWgDoK8pkCHECsGfnY34fYiK88JI/edit
>>
>> In looking at these test results I see that the Add Cookie feature has no
>> implementation reported as passing any of the tests.  The failure
>> documentation does not explain why this should be considered acceptable.
>>
>> Please explain.
>>
>> While the other features each have some tests with passing implementations,
>> this one stand out.
>>
>> -Ralph
>>
>>> With regard to those, the gist of it is that while we recognize we don’t
>>> have 100% of the tests passing, we don’t consider any of the current test
>>> failures to be major issues with the implementability of the spec — and
>>> we are confident that they will be corrected in implementations in due time —
>>> and we are more than satisfied that we have met our exit criteria with
>>> regard to demonstrating solid implementation experience.
>>>> The original transition request follows — with the only change being
>>> adjustment of the estimated publication date and to the information about
>>> the number of resolved issues. There have have otherwise been no changes to
>>> the spec that would invalidate prior reviews or that would otherwise affect
>>> the transition request.
> 
Received on Friday, 20 April 2018 14:27:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 20 April 2018 14:27:10 UTC