Re: Proposal to refactor the CSS test repo

On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
>  
> > I propose refactor the directories to use the spec short names just as the
> > spec repo does.
> 
> This is a great move. Thanks for driving this.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > The proposed new structure:
> >
> > tests/[spec-shortname, spec-shortname…]
> > test-plans/[spec-shortname, spec-shortname…]
> > tools
> 
> May I suggest instead to adopt the same format already used in the WPT repository, with shortnames at the root (eventually containing a test plan within each directory).

I'm fine with that, we just need a convention for identifying things that aren't tests, references, and support files, like test plans (either file naming or directory naming) so the tooling can ignore them.

> 
> > Also in full disclosure, I’m proposing this now as a precursor to another 
> > proposal I’d like to make to get the CSS repo more integrated (as a submodule) 
> > of the WPT repo.  Since that is an entirely different different discussion, 
> > I’ll reserve that for a different thread/list, but I think getting our stuff 
> > well organized must come first.
> 
> Suggest you'd bring that up on public-test-infra@ asap.
> 
> All tooling built around WPT assumes specs are at the root of the directory, using their shortnames. So including the CSS repo as a submodule won't help you much here, unless you fix both open-source tools AND lobby implementors to fix theirs (WPT is well on track to be part of most if not all browser vendors CI environments in the near future).

Seems like an odd limitation if it can't handle one additional level of directory. Even if the CSS tests were to be merged with the WPT repo given the number of CSS specs it would seem to be useful the have them all under a "css" directory.

> 
> Why not simply merge with the WPT repo? What technical issues prevent this?

Again, losing years of issue tracking, build tools, testing infrastructure to get specs out of CR, etc... This has all be discussed before, do we really need to have this discussion again? There is a plan to sync our issue tracking tools with GitHub's, but it's not done yet.

> 
> Best,
> 
> --tobie