Re: [csswg-drafts] [all] Consider policy to ask for web-platform-tests

The Working Group just discussed `Consider policy to ask for web-platform-tests`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Consider policy to ask for web-platform-tests<br>
&lt;dael> github:  https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1755<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: zcorpan_ would like to require tests for cssom and cssom view changes even though those specs aren't in cr. I think that's consistant with what we resolved in paris. Requiing this for tests not yet in cr also makes sense and it's up tot he spec author to make that determination.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: zcorpan_ is that accurate?<br>
&lt;zcorpan_> Yep.<br>
&lt;zcorpan_> So how this works in whatwg and other places is that a spec PR is blocked on having tests, and the two PRs are merged at the same time<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I am in favor of having spec authors require tests for changes they make at their discression in addition to having rossen and I hold people to that standad for CR+ specs<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: I'm a little confused. I thought zcorpan_ wanted to check in a file that explained that. It's nto the author requiring himself to do that, but for 3rd party contributors.<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: It's things added by everyone to that spec. poss merged by editor<br>
&lt;dael> astearns:  think zcorpan_ shoudl add somethign saying ti's required for CR specs and also for other specs at some level of stability.<br>
&lt;dael> Florian: I think his wording was a should and it was reused from other places. zcorpan_ are you okay with more specific wording or do you want to keep the generic one?<br>
&lt;zcorpan_> I would be happy either way, whatever works best for the group<br>
&lt;fantasai> gsnedders, if we're looking into reorganizing the tests within css/, we should also look into moving those &lt;200 non-cssom tests into css/; otherwise more people will try to copy that pattern and we'll end up with duplicate locations<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I think I would prefer havign the more specific wording so that I have something to point to when I start being hard about this requirement.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Any objections to having more specific wording in test repo documentation?<br>
&lt;Rossen> +1<br>
&lt;Florian> astearns: +1<br>
&lt;zcorpan_> sounds good<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I'll ask zcorpan_ to check those changes in.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1755#issuecomment-326050185 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2017 16:45:41 UTC