W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Proposal to refactor the CSS test repo

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:23:57 -0700
To: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Cc: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140424002357.GA8638@crum.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2014-04-23 16:57 +0000, Rebecca Hauck wrote:
> The proposed new structure:
> tests/[spec-shortname, spec-shortname...]
> test-plans/[spec-shortname, spec-shortname...]
> tools

One issue with this is how to deal with tests where the master copy
isn't in the CSSWG repository.

I've had a decent amount of success with getting developers who are
writing Mozilla patches with tests for new Web platform features,
where the tests ought to go in the CSSWG repository, to put those
tests in a specific directory in the Mozilla repository, so that I
can then occasionally import this directory to the CSSWG repository
(in contributors/mozilla/submitted/mozilla-central-reftests).

This has worked reasonably well as an approach for getting tests
written during Mozilla patch development into the CSSWG repository,
and it has low enough overhead that tests actually end up in the
CSSWG repository.  (This is despite substantial amounts of spec
churn that require substantial changes to many of these tests.)

I'm not sure how to continue such an import procedure in this
proposed new structure, in such a way that it would be low enough
overhead to actually work.


𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 00:24:33 UTC

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