Re: caret-color tests

Hello Florian,

Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 12:58:10 PM, you wrote:

> Hi Chris,

> Thanks for submitting 3 tests for caret-color to the css3-ui test suite.

> http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/search/testcase/spec/css-ui-3/section/6.2.1/load/t53/#t16

> I've reviewed them, and here are a few comments.

> == 1
> We just corrected a mistakes in the spec, and caret-color *does* inherit
> now, so caret-color-002.html needs to be changed.

Agreed.

> == 2
> The spec has also changed about how auto maps to currentColor.
> 1) auto used to compute to currentColor, now it computes to auto.
> 2) auto now *should* do the same as current color, but UAs may adjust
> it to maintain good contrast.

> Since your test did not directly test the computed value, just the resulting
> color, it is still usable, but "should" needs to be added to the flags
> and the assert text needs to be updated.

Agreed.

> == 3
> In addition to the word caret, you use the word cursor in the description,
> and it seems a bit confusing to me. How about saying this instead:

>   Test passes if, when the textarea is focused for editing, [...]

Yes, that is better.

> Similarly, even though these are tests about the caret and people need to
> know what they're doing, "caret" isn't a word that people use every day, and
> it tends to get confused with cursor. So while I think just saying "caret"
> in the title or the assert is fine, it could be nice to say
> "the text insertion caret" in the test instructions.

Yes, that is better.

> == 4
> Caret-color-001.html and caret-color-002.html use "#070" instead of "green".
> It's not that hard to read hex, but it'd be even easier to read the test
> source if you used the keyword everywhere.

okay.

> == 5
> You should add the "interact" flag on all tests

Yes.

I will make the changes you suggested for these tests and let you know
when i have done so. Thanks for your review!

> == 6
> Maybe it would be nice to add a small piece of JS that automatical focuses
> the textarea on load. It is not essential to running the test, and would
> not change the results, but would make running the test a bit more convenient.

It would, perhaps in a separate test - can you suggest something
suitable?

>  - Florian

> PS: Should I use shepherd's comment and reviewing system instead of mails?

That would be my preference, yes. Its easier to se the log of comments
and changes for each test.

-- 
Best regards,
 Chris  Lilley
 Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain

Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2015 17:14:28 UTC