W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2016

Re: Test assertions requirement

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:57:29 +0200
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <6E486605-F0DA-4A02-A060-93B73674E449@rivoal.net>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>

> On Aug 16, 2016, at 00:18, Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com> wrote:
> 
> (Bcc'd public-css-testsuite; can we please keep responses on a single
> mailing list, in this case www-style as it's about a WG resolution?)
> 
> In the SF F2F, 2016-05-09 we resolved:
> 
> RESOLVED: testharness.js tests don't need a meta assert (but reftests
> still do)
> 
>> From memory, this was based on a mistaken understanding that assertions
> were currently required everywhere.
> 
> This seems to contradict all documentation going back almost a decade!
> In 2007 fantasai updated the wiki in
> <https://wiki.csswg.org/test/format?do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1184350761&rev2%5B1%5D=1186099916&difftype=sidebyside>
> to state that assertions are optional (generically!).
> 
> I've been unable to find any discussion leading to this change, though
> obviously discussion was happening around then (see
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2007Jun/0024.html>
> for example).
> 
> Do we want to revisit the resolution in light of being mistaken as to
> previous policy? Or do we just want to consider the documentation wrong?


The documentation here as well says it is optional:
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html

Regardless of the previous status, I'd rather consider keep the requirement for the meta assert in reftests, but if others insists we drop it (back?) from must to should, I guess I can begrudgingly agree...

 - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 06:57:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 August 2016 06:57:52 UTC