W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Test plan documents in the repo

From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:21:05 -0700
To: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, Mirela Budaes <mbudaes@adobe.com>, Mihai Balan <mibalan@adobe.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, Stefan-Teodor Craciun <scraciun@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <CE94136C.1D8FB%rhauck@adobe.com>

On Oct 28, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com<mailto:rhauck@adobe.com>> wrote:

Hey Peter,

My colleagues Mihai Balan and Mireal Budaes have recently been designated as the Test Coordinators for the CSS Regions and CSS Compositing & Blending specs, respectively.  I'll be fulfilling that role for the CSS Shapes spec.  As part of our process to ensure we're getting the proper test coverage, we'd like to publish test plan documents for these specs. Mihai and Mirela have already authored such docs and are each serving them from their individual github repos [1][2].

Great news, be sure to set the test suite owners in Shepherd[3] so the information is picked up by the build. Ping me on IRC if you need help with that.

Just added myself for Shapes. Since Mirela's just kicked off the testing effort for Compositing and Blending, that suite does not yet exist in Shepherd. (The first set of tests are coming very shortly when PR #110 lands [4]).  Can I just go ahead and create the suite there manually now so I can add her name?  Following the naming convention I see there, would it be compositing-1_dev?

In an effort to make our testing strategy more transparent, we'd like to serve these documents from a more discoverable place that is closer to the tests (and specs).  Would it be ok to add them to the repo?  I'd propose a /test-plans  directory at the root of the repo with /spec-shortname subdirectories containing these documents.  Any objections?

Fine by me.

Great!  Mirela, Mihai, if you'd like to port your docs over, you can either send a PR in github (which may be easiest since they're already in github) or do a straight hg push.  We can then come up with a proposal for linking these docs so they're more discoverable.

Part 2 of this question  so they're easily viewable in the browser, is it ok if we create a gh-pages branch in github? (added benefit of making the tests' renderings viewable there as well)

It's ok with me if you want to create a gh-pages branch, note that we'll have to switch Shepherd's branch policy to allow named branches, otherwise people won't be able to push into the hg repo any more (it's currently blocking branches on push), alternatively I can modify the branch policy code to ignore the gh-pages branch.

If you do create a gh-pages branch, go ahead on commit the test-plans docs only in that branch (and make it an orphan branch as per the GitHub Pages instructions). Note that this will _not_ make the tests visible on GitHub Pages, you'd have to commit all the tests on the gh-pages branch (or branch gh-pages from a current point in the repo). We don't want this, as it'll create multiple copies of the tests in the repo and lead to all sorts of confusion down the road as the two branches get out of sync. Keep the gh-pages branch for docs ONLY, effectively it'll act like a separate repo inside the main one.

If you want to see the tests on a web server they've always been visible at: http://test.csswg.org/source/, there's no need to try to host them on GitHub Pages too.

Ah, I forgot about that.  No need for the gh-pages then.  Thanks!

[1] http://mibalan.github.io/css-regions-testing-strategy-proposal/
[2] http://mire.github.io/css-blending-test-plan-proposal/css-blending-test-plan-proposal.html

[3] https://test.csswg.org/shepherd/administration/testsuite/

[4] https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/pull/110
Received on Monday, 28 October 2013 20:19:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:19 UTC