- From: Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 09:53:36 -0500
- To: "'W3C Public Annotation List'" <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <099001d20aa9$f5c561b0$e1502510$@illinois.edu>
We have 173 assertions that test the validity of and document the implementation of the features of the Web Annotation Data Model as described in Sections 1 -4 (i.e., everything except collections and pages). These 173 assertions have been organized (see below) into 10 tests. Associated with each test is a Web form into which an implementer must paste her or his annotation when running that particular test. Tests can be run individually, but when running the complete suite of tests, the current organization means that implementers will need to paste the same annotation into 10 Web forms that open and close sequentially, one after another. The question came up this week whether we might want to reorganize the assertions into fewer tests. This is extremely easy to do, and can still be done, if we do it right away. Should we? If so, how should we reorganize our tests? Current Organization of assertions. Currently, the assertions are organized into tests along two-axes: - the type of assertion: validation check (56), implementation check (117) - the top-level annotation object involved: i.e., annotation, annotation-agent, body, target, body/target-agent, specific resource So, there is the annotationMusts.test, the annotationOptionals.test, the annotationAgentOptionals.text (note, Agents have no Musts), the bodyMusts.test, and so on. The current organization of tests allows users to selectively test, e.g., run only the Annotation-level tests (path=/annotation-model/annotations/) or run only the validation checks (check the use_regex box and path="/annotation-model/.*/.*Must"). So the questions are: - whether this flexibility is worth it? - whether a fewer tests approach - e.g., allMust.test (56 assertions) and allOptionals.test (117 assertions) - would scale, make more sense to implementers, and work okay with the test runner software? Thoughts? Thanks, Tim Cole
Received on Friday, 9 September 2016 14:54:12 UTC