W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Towards a better testsuite: Build System

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:32:28 -0400
To: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org, W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5709127C.3020608@inkedblade.net>
On 04/09/2016 07:42 AM, Ms2ger wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2016 19:01, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net <mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>> wrote:
>> However, individual vendors may need scripts to convert the
>> test-reference linkages into their preferred format E.g.
>> for Mozilla, we do need to generate reftest manifest files,
>> which are currently constructed by the build system. But
>> that can be done with a lighter-weight system that just
>> generates manifests in place per directory.
> We don't, actually. We already run reftests from wpt using
> its manifest format; there's no reason to use reftest.list.

Right, but the CSSWG tests don't have any manifest; we use
<link> tags intead. So we'd need to generate some kind of
manifest, whether it's in WPT format or reftest.list format.

>> (As for adopting a "filename convention" for mapping the
>> tests and references... No. There are thousands of CSS tests
>> that use the same reference file. Whoever wants a "filename
>> convention" can make 1000 copies of each common reference if
>> they want, but I refuse to support such nonsense in the CSSWG
>> repository.)
> Where did anybody suggest that? Wpt uses a filename convention
> to mark manual tests, but not for reftests.

Well, apparently some people think this is a good idea:

p.s. why does your address book list public-css-testsuite as Mike Smith?

Received on Saturday, 9 April 2016 14:33:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:21 UTC