Re: on execCommand() and script-triggered copy/cut/paste

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Johannes Wilm <> wrote:
> Ok, I take it we should just link to the editing tests in the execCommand
> spec and the selection tests will be linked to by the Selection API specs,
> right?

Yes, that's right.

> I looked through the description text of the editing tests, and it appeared
> to me that most of that was outdated as well. At least I couldn't find the
> following among the tests:
> * implementation.js as a JavaScript implementation (the manual tests give
> 404 messages due to it missing)

implementation.js was used for generating the expected results in the
conformance tests and for the development tests, but isn't needed for
running the conformance tests once the expected results are generated.
(Actually, a few bits are, so the file is still there, but most of the
file can really be deleted.)

> * conformance tests vs. development tests. The development tests seem to be
> mostly gone, but the tests in the "manual" directory seem to likely be meant
> for development, right?

No, those are conformance tests, they just can't be run automatically
because they require keyboard or mouse input.  James Graham told me
that I should put them there named ".manual.html", and when
testharness.js eventually supports synthesizing user input, they can
be converted to automatic.  The development test files are useless now
and I deleted them.  (I didn't test that the tests in editing/manual/
still work -- actually, come to think of it, they probably don't, and
I should fix them.)

> * multitest which is mentioned in the description I cannot find

It's just a section of the tests.  See run/multitest.html and
data/multitest.js.  The difference was mostly to do with the
development tests, not conformance tests.

> * There is a notice at the top of each tests saying 'See the <a
> href="editing.html#tests">Tests</a> section of the specification for
> documentation.' and the link leads nowhere.

Yeah, that should be removed.  I didn't bother reworking the tests
more than necessary for them to be functional.

> So I wonder -- should the section Tests just have a single paragraph of
> content saying "Tests can be found <a
> href="">here</a>" and the description of which
> test is where included with the tests themselves, or should we update the
> description of the tests in the spec itself? I am fine with either solution,
> but if it's to be added to the specification.

Now that the spec and tests are not in the same repo, I think the spec
shouldn't discuss the tests in detail, because it will fall out of
sync.  A link is fine.

Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 11:09:26 UTC