W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-epub3@w3.org > June 2017

Re: [epubcheck] Test file directory structure proposal

From: Teixeira, Mateus <mteixeira@wwnorton.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:57:14 +0000
To: GROS VINCENT <VGROS@hachette-livre.fr>, Brady Duga <duga@google.com>, "Matt Garrish" <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
CC: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, "public-epub3@w3.org" <public-epub3@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CEA49F53-C798-46EC-B131-C675ADCECB01@wwnorton.com>
+1 for unzipped. Directories and zipped EPUBs are both easily validated, but directories are much more suited to git.

From: GROS VINCENT <VGROS@hachette-livre.fr>
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 10:18 AM
To: Brady Duga <duga@google.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Cc: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, "public-epub3@w3.org" <public-epub3@w3.org>
Subject: RE: [epubcheck] Test file directory structure proposal
Resent-From: <public-epub3@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 10:19 AM

Hi Epubcheckers,

+1 to Matt’s opinion : unzipped so we can inspect the changed files, except for tests of zipping.

And I’m fine with the directory structure proposal. The initial substructures are great, and we can work on adding next subfolders (for example ‘metadata’, ‘manifest’, ‘spine’ and ‘guide’ for the OPF substructure).

/ Vincent

De : Brady Duga [mailto:duga@google.com]
Envoyé : mardi 20 juin 2017 16:15
À : Matt Garrish
Cc : Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; Garth Conboy; public-epub3@w3.org
Objet : Re: [epubcheck] Test file directory structure proposal

+1 for unzipped. We would also lose reasonable history, unless github does some magic.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'll offer an opinion: unzipped except for tests of zipping. Other than being easier to work with unzipped files, when anyone commits changes you don't have to rely on their commit log but can inspect the changed files. Github doesn't show changes to individual files within a zip container, or not last I looked.


From: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken [mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>]
Sent: June 20, 2017 9:44 AM
To: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com<mailto:garth@google.com>>
Cc: public-epub3@w3.org<mailto:public-epub3@w3.org>
Subject: RE: [epubcheck] Test file directory structure proposal

Thanks, Garth

That’s what I get for writing this stuff at the end of my day. I am surprised that no one has an opinion on zipped/unzipped. It’s a hot topic.

The divvying is for the people on the epubcheck TF who said they were up for it.  Romain or Tobias were planning to write step-by-step instructions. I don’t want to break anything though. I hope to corner Romain when he see him later this week to make sure that we do this in a way that works.

The actual reorg is a real project. I am hoping that someone volunteers. I have a few people in mind if no one steps up.


Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead

From: Garth Conboy [mailto:garth@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:19 AM
To: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
Cc: public-epub3@w3.org<mailto:public-epub3@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [epubcheck] Test file directory structure proposal

Morning Tzviya,

I think there likely wants to be some discussion on the point of disagreement in the document between Brady and I, regarding the canonical storage format for test EPUB files -- zipped ".epub"s (based on Dave's file) or exploded directories (based on unzipping Dave's file).  Either will fit in the proposed structure, and there are some plusses and minuses to each -- those actually working with current test should likely chime in.

I'm not sure any egalitarian "divvying" will work in practice -- those that do the work must be comfortable with pulling the source and running/checking the tests -- and some light coding.  This reorganization is a real project.


On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> wrote:
Thanks Garth and Brady. We are ahead of schedule!

I see no comments on this. Do we all agree with this organizational structure for the repo?

Everyone did their homework very quickly. We now have a proposed naming convention for files [1], a minimal file [2]. Please take some time to review these proposals and offer your feedback by the end of the month, as we agreed.

I will divvy up the files for clean up according to these rules next week.


[1] https://github.com/IDPF/epubcheck/wiki/TestSuiteCleanup#define-a-naming-convention

[2] https://github.com/IDPF/epubcheck/tree/master/src/test/resources/minimal-epub

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead

From: Garth Conboy [mailto:garth@google.com<mailto:garth@google.com>]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 1:55 PM
To: public-epub3@w3.org<mailto:public-epub3@w3.org>
Subject: [epubcheck] Test file directory structure proposal

Hello epubchckers,

I've put together a proposal for this action item with Brady's blessing (and one noted area of disagreement).

The document can be found here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v7-aSgdA-6dd-5zOTOqwAJGlh2Aa4hYFX1TcCdDesYo/edit#heading=h.ymvhjyrr5mdi>.

Everybody with the link has comment access, and if specific folks would like to edit, just let me know.

Of course, conversation can happen on this thread too.

Have a good weekend (which I'm starting early just about now).


Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:57:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:28:40 UTC