Re: CSS 2.1 test suite feedback: organizational

On 09/27/2010 08:15 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 2:02 am, fantasai wrote:
>> On 09/26/2010 11:27 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>>> I've been through about 60% of the HTML4 tests in the 20100917 suite, and have some feedback.
>>> For pure cleanliness reasons, I suggest that the files in the html4 and xhtml1
>>> directories are broken into test files and non-test files. I suggest a hierarchy
>>> like the following:
>>> [html|xhtml1]/
>>>                toc.html
>>>                chapters/
>>>                         chapter-1.[htm|xht]
>>>                         ...
>>>                tests/
>> This should be doable. I am wondering, however, why the chapter tocs are not in
>> the main directory?
> They could be; that would be fine.

Would it make sense to separate out reftests and selftests into their own

Note we also have tests that are both.

>>> indices: index of the test in the chapters it appears; comma-separated list with
>>> the same length as chapters (e.g. "134, 12,10").
>> Hmm, this might be difficult. Why do you need this information?
> My test harness is currently scraping the chapter files to present the testcases
> in the same order they appear there, since seems to have a random
> sort order.
> It's useful to present tests in order, so that similar tests are grouped, lowering
> the amount of mental effort for each test.
> Perhaps I can just group based on the links info, and the sort by filename
> within those categories? Is that how the chapter files are organized?

The best thing to do would be to use the order in the implementation report
template. That one is sorted by filename first, format name second. This
is probably the best way to sort it: it's a stable order, very simple to
determine, groups tests belonging to a series together, and does not have
duplicates. It will jump around chapters a bit, but tests on a single topic
tend to belong to the same series.

>   Any test that requires special action to test (and therefore cannot be run automatically)
> should have a flag to indicate this. Are there any other prerequisites of this nature
> which are not flagged yet?

I am not sure. I think gsnedders added a flag for 'animated'. And
as I mentioned there's already one for 'interact'.


Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 02:06:59 UTC