- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:25:33 -0400
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Cc: "public-html-testsuite@w3.org" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:52 AM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote: > * Getting the results out of the test into our systems. In theory this is > solved for testharness.js tests by including a second <script>; > testharnessreport.js that is blank on the W3C site and which vendors can use > to convert the testharness.js results to whatever is needed > result-collection system they use. However not all tests have consistently > included this extra script. I never got the point of that. Why don't reusers just hack testharness.js itself? Or if we want it to be a separate file for convenience, why doesn't testharness.js add the <script> to include that file automatically? > The second problem needs a bit of thought. Possibly the testsuite > could have a build step and servers could be variables in the original > files. That has some disadvantages though since there is non-negligible > overhead to making everyone build the testsuite before they can run it. If we make sure that the set of hosts is fixed and their roles are well-documented, would it be unreasonable to ask implementers to just edit the host file on their test machine to point the domain to someplace they control? That seems like it would be a lot simpler than any of the alternatives I can think of.
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 22:26:20 UTC