Re: Testing and Test Driver

>
> * I sincerely hope that several of the interfaces will change (method
> names etc), which means that trivial interface tests are likely to have to
> be rewritten at least once.
>

Probably a question for a separate thread, but what interfaces/method names
are you particularly unhappy with? Is this a concern shared by others?

On 19 July 2012 08:17, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote:

> Den 2012-07-19 01:00:18 skrev Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>:
>
>  Hi, folks-
>>
>>  [snip ;) ]
>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> Generally, I'm positive to early testing and DFT (design for test)
> methodology. However, the current state of the Web Audio API poses a few
> issues:
>
> * Much of the signal processing behavior of the audio API is undefined,
> meaning that the majority of semantic tests are currently impossible to
> write based on the spec. Here, writing the tests and writing the spec would
> go hand-in-hand, and can probably only be done successfully by the editor.
>
> * Generally speaking, writing tests would more often than not require
> changes/additions to the spec (e.g. turning non-normative wording into
> normative text), and I don't really see how we can do that efficiently
> unless the test writers are also spec writers in one way or the other.
>
> * I sincerely hope that several of the interfaces will change (method
> names etc), which means that trivial interface tests are likely to have to
> be rewritten at least once.
>
>
> /Marcus
>
>
>
> --
> Marcus Geelnard
> Core Graphics Developer
> Opera Software ASA
>
>