Re: Marking non-automated tests

On 02/07/2013 09:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I would really rather not. Metadata capture should be designed in such a
> way that it ensures in as much as possible that it won't go out of date.
> External authoritative metadata such as in a text file is guaranteed to
> break. That's why I proposed inlining it (in the most lightweight manner
> I could think of).

Inline metadata has the disadvantage that it is hard to extract 
(requires a HTML parser in this case) and can affect the test itself. 
Therefore I am quite opposed to putting this data in the testcase itself.

> Another option is to capture that in file names (if there's ".manual."
> in the file name, then it's manual).

That option works for me, as long as "javascript" is considered the 
default. Alternatively I am happy with a specific sub-directory for non 
automated tests e.g. /path/to/spec/part/non-automated. Dunno how to 
handle reftests in that scheme (they could go in a /reftest directory of 
course).

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 09:24:47 UTC