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

Re: CSS test repo refactored - branch ready for review

From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:35:04 +0000
To: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
CC: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CFB3B69B.4FCBF%rhauck@adobe.com>


On 6/3/14, 5:27 PM, "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:

>Le 2014-06-03 20:11, Rebecca Hauck a écrit :
>> Hey Gérard,
>> 
>> To address your concerns, I reorganized css21 and moved all the files
>> that
>> were at the root into section subdirectories.
>
>Rebecca,
>
>I've been doing just that since early this afternoon, with Mercurial !!

My apologies. I was under the impression that you didn’t have the time to
move things around and I offered to do it instead.  No changes have been
submitted - this is only a branch in my fork for preview. If you prefer to
do this to make these changes yourself, it’s no problem.  It didn’t take
me that long to do.

>
>
>> I did this in my forked
>> repo on Github so you could easily review it there before pushing it
>> [1].
>> (Note: If/when I do land these changes, they’ll be pushed directly to
>> Mercurial rather then merged from Github).
>> 
>> The commit with all the files moved is here [2]. If you’d like to clone
>> this repo and browse it locally, you’ll have to clone the
>> ‘organize-css21'
>> branch:
>> 
>> git clone -b organize-css21 git@github.com:rhauck/csswg-test.git
>> 
>> 
>> Or, if you do not have a public key set up:
>> 
>> git clone -b organize-css21 https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test.git

>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Let me know if this looks better to you and if you have any other
>> suggestions. It’s fairly straightforward to make changes.
>
>I have no idea what's going on right now. I'm very much confused now. :(
 
Again I apologize if I caused confusion. It certainly wasn’t my intention
and nothing is different than it was yesterday. I just wanted to make sure
to address the issues you brought up yesterday and had a little time today
to revisit this.  

Let me know what you’d like to do.

Cheers,
-Rebecca



>
>Gérard
>
>> 
>> Also, I added the script I used to check that no paths to reference or
>> support files were broken [3].  I’ll add this to the main repo when I
>> land
>> these changes.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -Rebecca
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test/tree/organize-css21

>> [2]
>> 
>>https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test/commit/911ca986fe57ce43075cae6b05d11

>>a1
>> 9c55118fb
>> [3]
>> 
>>https://github.com/rhauck/csswg-test/blob/organize-css21/tools/path_check

>>er
>> .py
>> 
>> On 6/2/14, 8:04 PM, "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.x

>>>ht
>>> 
>>> 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/70cfca08acf7fdb1119eb2e7ecbccd

>>>>91
>>>> 15
>>>> cd81c7
>>>> [3]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/commit/55ecf8c9c7bfcb67d059ea68dc8041

>>>>d8
>>>> a8
>>>> 0cdf7f
>>>> [4]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2014May/0000.h

>>>>tm
>>>> l
>>>> [5]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2013Nov/0014.h

>>>>tm
>>>> l
>>>> [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-con

>>>tr
>>> ibutions-css21-testsuite.html
>>> CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011
>>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html

>
>-- 
>Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
>http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contr

>ibutions-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 Wednesday, 4 June 2014 00:35:43 UTC

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