Re: [testing] HTML Media Capture tests/pull request review

Hi All,

On 18 Mar 2014, at 23:37, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:

> I’ve taken a look a the HTML Media Capture tests and issue thread related to them [1].

[...]

> My proposal is that we accept the pull request for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Make a test draft baseline visible for further comment and involvement.
> 
> 2. Provide tests based on the current approach of the specification.

+1

Frederick, thanks for the detailed analysis. Also thanks Cathy for your review comments, and Zhiqiang for updating the tests promptly.

> I believe the current Security and Privacy Considerations section with its "shoulds" represents  a compromise between mandating security/privacy items and recognizing the need for implementer judgement. I suspect we will need to accept the ambiguity related to testing but manage it by making clear the core tests versus these ones that provide guidance. (I thought that was what Tobie was suggesting in thread about adding metadata but might have misread that). The tests that relate to this do have "<meta name="flags" content="interact should”>” but maybe we need an “optional-to-test” flag.
> 
> Ultimately I think we need a document that says: here are the mandated tests, and here are additional tests and rules related to security/privacy, not sure the framework supports such notion, or is there some metadata that allows this?

What comes to existing reftest requirement flags we’re reusing (<meta name="flags" content="[requirement flags]”>):

  http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html#requirement-flags

... nothing specific to security/privacy related rules. I guess we should be able to add our own purpose-made flag if there’s a use case for that though.

[...]

> [1] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/306

Thanks,

-Anssi

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2014 09:26:19 UTC