RE: Implementation Report [Was: ACTION-141 ...]

We should label and also merge into the CR branch (https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests#branches). I can do that once we’ve landed the last PRs.

From: Asir Vedamuthu Selvasingh (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:asirveda@microsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:20 PM
To: Arthur Barstow; Philippe Le Hegaret
Cc: public-pointer-events@w3.org
Subject: RE: Implementation Report [Was: ACTION-141 ...]

Automatically is good. Yes, we should label the version that we will use for CR testing.

--Asir
________________________________
From: Arthur Barstow<mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>
Sent: ‎10/‎26/‎2014 9:41 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu Selvasingh (MS OPEN TECH)<mailto:asirveda@microsoft.com>; Philippe Le Hegaret<mailto:plh@w3.org>
Cc: public-pointer-events@w3.org<mailto:public-pointer-events@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Implementation Report [Was: ACTION-141 ...]
On 10/26/14 2:53 PM, Asir Vedamuthu Selvasingh (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> How often do Pointer-Events test endpoints (at http://w3c-test.org/pointerevents/) get updated from the W3C GitHub repo? Are they updated automatically or manually on request from testers?

My understanding is that as soon as a w-p-t PR is merged, its changes
should automagically be reflected in the appropriate directory(s) in
w3c-test.org/.

A somewhat orthogonal question is whether or not we want to add a label
to all of the  approved/merged tests that will be used for CR testing.
(This would help differentiate any new or modified tests that we do not
use for testing CR interoperability.) It seems like we would want to do
that.

-AB


>
> -- Asir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 1:51 PM
> To: Arthur Barstow
> Cc: public-pointer-events@w3.org<mailto:public-pointer-events@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Implementation Report [Was: ACTION-141 ...]
>
> On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 16:43 -0400, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Hi Philippe,
>>
>> During the October 21 Pointer Events WG call [1], we discussed formal
>> CR testing. The group agreed to try to use the w-p-t "runner" [2] and
>> to put test results in [3] (not yet created).
>>
>> We haven't yet agreed on the structure and format of the
>> Implementation Report. One option we discussed is to use the wptreport
>> tool [4]. Do you recommend using that tool for our Implementation Report (f.ex. see [5])?
>>
>> If not, we would appreciate your recommendations on any other tool to
>> use and/or example Implementation Reports you would recommend us pattern.
> That tool was good enough for HTML5 and DOM. I don't have an alternative to propose so, sure, use that one.
>
> Philippe
>
>> -Thanks, ArtB
>>
>> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2014/10/21-pointerevents-minutes.html#item04>
>> [2] <http://w3c-test.org/tools/runner/index.html>
>> [3] <https://github.com/w3c/test-results/tree/gh-pages/pointerevents>
>> [4] <https://www.npmjs.org/package/wptreport>
>> [5] <http://w3c.github.io/test-results/IndexedDB/all.html>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:      ACTION-141: Check with philippe if the runner test reporting
>> mechanism is ok for cr
>> Resent-Date:  Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:28:52 +0000
>> Resent-From:  public-pointer-events@w3.org<mailto:public-pointer-events@w3.org>
>> Date:         Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:28:51 +0000
>> From:         Pointer Events Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org<mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>>
>> Reply-To:     Pointer Events Working Group <public-pointer-events@w3.org<mailto:public-pointer-events@w3.org>>
>> To:   public-pointer-events@w3.org<mailto:public-pointer-events@w3.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> ACTION-141: Check with philippe if the runner test reporting mechanism
>> is ok for cr
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/pointerevents/track/actions/141
>>
>> Assigned to: Doug Schepers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>