Re: UAs passing tests if they don't implement a feature

On Wednesday 2012-06-20 20:12 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> On 20/06/12 19:03, fantasai wrote:
> >Not refs make this relatively easy for many tests.
> 
> But in general we don't want to use not refs, as they don't test
> whether you get something expected, just that you don't get one
> thing. (They have near-∞ passing conditions, not 1.)

I think the idea was that the *reference* would have a negative
reference.  So you'd have an assertion:
  test == reference != not-reference
where not-reference would be the same as reference except with the
feature in question removed.

For example:
  test:          transform: rotate(45deg)
  reference:     transform: matrix(...)
  not-reference: no transform

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂