- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:10:55 -0400
- To: "Rebecca Hauck" <rhauck@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Le Mer 12 septembre 2012 15:02, Rebecca Hauck a écrit : > Hi Gérard, > > I've updated the first batch of borders tests to include CSS3 spec links > and convert wherever possible. Since you've been doing a lot of > conversions, I wanted to have you spot-check this first batch to make > sure the changes I've made are ok. You may want to have a look at this list of unreftestable tests: http://wiki.csswg.org/test/reftest#unreftestable-tests in which I had double as border-style listed at item 20. > Most/all of the tests in this suite are testing the border shorthand > property – not specific property values, just various permutations & > syntax. I took the liberty of changing dashed borders to double in > order to easily create references. Can you confirm that's ok? The rest > of the changes I made were smaller – increased width of the border, > change "blue" to "green" in some cases. Also, the wording of the assert > I changed from "two boxes" to "two concentric squares" (for example). > The latter is less ambiguous. > > The tests where I only added spec links I pushed back to the approved > directory: border 001, 003, 005, 006, 008. (maybe these can be flipped > back to Approved now?) > > The ones I converted and changed are forked and pushed to my submitted > folder: rhauck/submitted/css3-backgroundsborders: border 002, 004, 007, > 009-018. Here, I'm pretty sure this is not okay. There are now 2 unique tests with the same border-002 filename and they are different. http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/testcase/border-002/ If we leave things as they are, then I believe the build system will not succeed tonight. > Also, one last question: can you clarify the proper tagging I should be > doing in the subject line for other mails of the nature? Should I be > adding [RC6] to them as you do? Identifying tests with their respective RC collections is going to be useful if there are eventual future RC. If an email discusses difficulties, problems of a specific test in, say, [RC3], then this is/will be useful as anyone can look into [RC4] for such test to see if and how the difficulties, problems were corrected (or not). There will be an [RC7] for sure, possibly this fall. ---------- One thing I did not do so far is list all the tests for which I have an entirely new versions (which I mentioned in Shepherd) and that are proposed as replacements. Some that I remember: http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/c414-flt-ln-000.xht http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/c414-flt-ln-001.xht http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/c414-flt-ln-003.xht http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ltr-borders-001.xht Gérard -- Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite: http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011: http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html CSS 2.1 test suite harness: http://test.csswg.org/harness/ Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite: http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 22:11:22 UTC