RE: [RC6] Several background-0* tests are duplicates

On Saturday, March 24, 2012 5:17 PM Gérard Talbot wrote:
> Le Sam 24 mars 2012 19:11, "Gérard Talbot" a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > background-090 Background with (color image position repeat) [RC6]
> > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-090.htm
> >
> > background-093 Background with (color repeat image position) [RC6]
> > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-093.htm
> >
> > background-096 	Background with (color repeat position image)
> > [RC6]
> > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-096.htm
> >
> > 'background'
> >     Value:  	[<'background-color'> || <'background-image'> ||
> > <'background-repeat'> || <'background-attachment'> ||
> > <'background-position'>] | inherit
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/colors.html#propdef-background
> >
> >
> >
> > "
> > A double bar (||) separates two or more options: one or more of them
> > must occur, in any order.
> > "
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/about.html#value-defs
> >
> >
> > background-090, background-093 and background-096 have, for practical
> > reasons, the exact same code.
> 
> 
> background-111 Background with (image color repeat position) [RC6]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-111.htm
> 
> background-114 Background with (image color position repeat) [RC6]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-114.htm
> 
> background-117 Background with (image repeat color position) [RC6]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-117.htm
> 
> background-120 Background with (image repeat position color) [RC6]
> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-120.htm
> 
> 
> Many tests are in reality duplicates; they have same code and same
> rendered layout, except permutation of background sub-properties.
> 

None of these that you list are duplicates. Visually they may look the same but in reality they are testing that you can place the values in any order as per how the specification defines. These tests are not really relevant for established browsers since most of those browsers have this logic correct but anyone implementing something new with a new parser needs to run these cases and verify that the parsing is correct. Also in the past (2+ years ago) multiple browsers had parsing errors with many of the background tests. It wasn't until these tests were written that all those bugs were caught. 

I do agree that there now may be a better way to handle parsing cases for CSS but at the time these were written we only had visual verification for parsing tests. If I were to rewrite these tests today I would probably write a DOM test to verify that the values get parsed correctly or if I were to leave them visual tests I would combine all of them into one test and use smaller squares for verification. Either way would work I think.

Not sure what we should do now though. The tests are fine as is. They are valid, correct and they are not duplicates. So I am not seeing your point on how they are duplicates. As long as the values are in a different order and they do not have the same number of sub-values as any other background test then it is a different test and not a duplicate.

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 16:45:40 UTC