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

Re: CSS test repo refactored - branch ready for review

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:04:56 -0400
To: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Cc: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Message-ID: <c257a3076128cb82140f94cd518d4a80@gtalbot.org>
Le 2014-06-02 21:41, Rebecca Hauck a écrit :
> Hi Gérard,
> 
> [Š]
> 
>> 
>>> All the locations of files within the repository are maintained by
>>> people (you really don't want an automated process modifying the
>>> repository).
>> 
>> Forgive my question but ... where are *all of my submitted tests* now 
>> ?
>> in my local repository? and in http://test.csswg.org/source/ ?
>> 
>> I ask this because ...
>> There used to be a /contributors folder (which was in the /src/ 
>> folder)
>> where all contributors had their folder by their username. Now, such
>> /contributors folder is only visible, only accessible via mercurial 
>> and
>> has only a few folders.
>> I can see right now an
>> /contributors/gtalbot/submitted
>> but it is empty and this folder is not viewable, not accessible from
>> http://test.csswg.org/source/
> 
> 
> We are no longer keeping submitted tests in folders by user or company
> name. We still have a place for work-in-progress that has user/company
> folders under it, but this is really to support the legacy process when
> people were pushing directly to Mercurial.

I still use Mercurial.

> Those files needed to be parked
> somewhere and I chose the name 'work-in-progress' because it was more
> descriptive than Œincoming¹. We now no longer need special instructions 
> or
> specific directory names to submit a test. It¹s very simple - if you¹re
> submitting tests for the Backgrounds & Borders spec (for example), your
> test goes in the css-backgrounds-3 directory. This makes it very easy 
> to
> find all of the tests for a given spec in one place rather than being
> spread across multiple user/company folders.

Understandable.

> It will also make it easier
> for vendors to import tests for any given spec or set of specs 
> (automated
> or otherwise) as it eliminates the need to parse the test files to 
> figure
> out what specs they¹re testing. Implementors really want to access 
> tests
> by specs and not by who authored them (although we can rely on the
> metadata for that if needed).

Understandable.

> If you still have contributors folder locally, you likely have some 
> hidden
> dot files that prevented it from being removed when you updated your 
> local
> repo.

Yes. After checking the viewing (display) of hidden files, I see hidden 
.directory files in all folders of /contributors/gtalbot/

> It happened to me as well with those pesky .DS_Store files.

.DS_Store files are MacOSX-related, I believe.

> What
> you see in the web interface at http://test.csswg.org/source/ is 
> accurate
> and you can safely delete your local contributors folder.
> 
> And of course as you know, you can always query all of the tests you
> authored via Shepherd or grep locally if you wish. Your tests were 
> across
> multiple specs so they got filed under the appropriate spec 
> directories.

Some of my tests were accross multiple specs. Others were not. In any 
case, ~= 260 of my tests were not moved into appropriate spec 
directories.

Eg

http://test.csswg.org/source/css21/background-position-applies-to-001a.xht

is not in

http://test.csswg.org/source/css21/backgrounds/

... where I think it should be instead.


> If you want the complete list of where everything went, the HG 
> changeset
> is here [1], but the Github interface actually gives you a little nicer
> view of the the renaming [2]. Everything you had in
> /contributors/gtalbot/incoming moved to /work-in-progress/gtalbot [3]. 
> The
> full description of the changes that were made are at the top of this
> thread [4].
> 
> On somewhat of a side note, since we¹re now in the Github world, any 
> new
> tests that land in the repo should start with a pull request where they
> will be reviewed, approved, and merged from there. We are favoring this
> over using the mailing list for test reviews for reasons I outlined 
> here
> [5].


I'm sorry. I am still outdated then.


> All W3C test submissions are now done this way and it¹s a much
> cleaner approach than relying on an external system or directory naming
> convention to reflect test status.  There are still a few who push
> directly to Mercurial, but we are not broadcasting this workflow any
> longer and and even the veterans are discouraged from doing this if 
> what
> they¹re submitting needs review. I personally only do so for 
> housekeeping
> tasks that don¹t require a review. With this new workflow, all tests 
> that
> are merged into the repo can be assumed reviewed and approved.
> 
> Now, I realize that we still have many tests unreviewed from before we
> adopted Github. We can still use Shepherd for tracking these-- either 
> its
> API or the web interface. However, at some point, we¹ll have to decide 
> how
> to reconcile these tests as it¹s probably not realistic to expect that
> thousands of tests will ever be reviewed by humans. Peter and I have 
> had
> some offline discussions about how to address this, but this is a issue 
> to
> solve later.

I have ideas on this.

> We have Shepherd in the meantime (luckily). We wanted to make
> these changes first to move closer to the way the rest of the W3C 
> manages
> tests. We¹re now in a better position to merge/move into the main W3C
> web-platform-tests repo [6]. That¹s also a separate discussion that 
> only
> just began at the last CSSWG F2F and it will certainly pick up again 
> soon.
>  We just had to do this part first.
> 
> Let me know if you have any other questions & thanks again for your
> incredible attention to detail. :)

:)

Gérard

> Cheers,
> -Rebecca
> 
> 
> [1] http://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/8ed45b2c892f
> [2]
> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/commit/70cfca08acf7fdb1119eb2e7ecbccd9115
> cd81c7
> [3]
> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/commit/55ecf8c9c7bfcb67d059ea68dc8041d8a8
> 0cdf7f
> [4]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2014May/0000.html
> [5]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2013Nov/0014.html
> [6] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests

-- 
Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 03:05:29 UTC

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