- From: John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:41:42 +0000
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-css-testsuite-request@w3.org [mailto:public-css-testsuite- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sylvain Galineau > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:34 AM > To: Boris Zbarsky > Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org > Subject: RE: Conversion of MS CSS 2.1 tests to reftests > > Like it or not, that's what it takes us. There are long series of tests that do not > take anywhere near 11s/testcase. Others do take longer. No slave labor > necessary but not a leisurely 9-to-5 schedule either. And yes, we do have > someone who knows it backwards and forwards and can likely do it faster > than most. So let's be very conservative and call it 5 days. That is still > substantially less, imo, than building an automation system, testing it, > converting part - or all ? - of the testcases to reftests (or whatever input > format the automation expects), finding any mistakes from that process etc. > If that's your preferred course of action, great. But unless you had a > significant headstart before the Oslo meeting then 10/15 was a completely > unrealistic deadline. Is it too much to ask for you to acknowledge this and tell > the WG: > "This is the way we're going to proceed. Therefore we can't submit an > Implementation Report by 10/15; it won't be ready before X" ? If you think > you can still make 10/15 that'd be good to know too. From all the arguing I'm > not getting that vibe though. > > Understand that I'm not really questioning why or how you want to do it. All > I'm asking is that you offer you best estimate as to how long it's going to take > you. > > As for mistakes, they are certainly possible in a manual process. Since we run > it across browser, we can certainly compare your results with ours. That > should shake out a lot of false positives/negatives on both sides. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:21 AM > To: Sylvain Galineau > Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org > Subject: Re: Conversion of MS CSS 2.1 tests to reftests > > On 9/21/10 11:21 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > Running the test suite takes about 3 days. > > The HTML 4.01 version of the test suite has 7989 tests in it. 3 work days is > 86400 seconds. So you're saying that the test suite can be run at 11 seconds > per test without taking any breaks, right? Without slave labor? And without > making mistakes? > > Or did you mean that if you task enough people with doing it you can run the > test suite in 3 days? Please note, that I ran the entire suite for the first time last summer and it took me three days of interrupted time (NOT non-interrupted time). I just now ran 20 tests from the HTML suite and it took me 24 seconds. I am not saying this is typical, necessarily, and when you hit a failure it certainly adds time, but I think that looking at an 11 second average seems very high in practice. -John > > Fwiw, I just tried running a few of the tests, and I think 30 seconds per test is > a good estimate for the simple ones (that's how long they take me to run > given the network lag, etc); the more complicated ones need more time than > that to just read. That gives me a lower bound of about 8 person-days, > assuming 100% efficiency. I'd be really surprised if someone can run the test > suite for more than an hour or two straight without starting to make > mistakes, though, so you either need to have redundancy or a lot more > people doing a bit at a time... > > That's just the HTML version of the test suite, note. > > -Boris > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 17:42:16 UTC