- From: Zhang, Zhiqiang <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 01:27:10 +0000
- To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "Bassbouss, Louay" <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
- CC: "public-secondscreen@w3.org" <public-secondscreen@w3.org>
Hi Anssi, Louay, > From: Kostiainen, Anssi > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 7:33 PM > To: Bassbouss, Louay <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de>; Zhang, > Zhiqiang <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com> > Cc: public-secondscreen@w3.org > Subject: Test suite for the Presentation API (was: Test Facilitator for the > Presentation API) > > Hi All, Louay, Zhiqiang, > > > On 15 Dec 2015, at 19:09, Bassbouss, Louay > <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > I added a new Testing section [1] in the wiki that describes how to setup > the test environment and how to write tests for the Presentation API. As you > know, we will use the Web Platform Tests Project [2] as a Test Suite for the > Presentation API. I already submitted a new PR [3] with initial folder > structure and IDLharness for the Presentation API. once this PR is merged in > the main repository we will have an additional folder “presentation-api” in > the web-platform-tests project similar to other W3C API. inside this folder > we will have two subfolders “controlling-ua” and “receiving-ua” to test the > Presentation API on controlling and receiving user agents. The initial version I > submitted contains WebIDL tests of the Presentation API (each of the > “controlling-ua” and “receiving-ua” contains a test file “idlharness.html”). > After the PR is merged, you are welcomed to submit tests ;). I will share with > you more details about test strategy of the Presentation API in the next days. > Looking forward for your feedback and comments. Great start. > Louay - thank you for bootstrapping the testing effort for the Presentation > API! When the initial test suite PR has landed, I suggest you update the spec > adding a pointer to the test suite to give it more visibility (otherLinks in > respecConfig). > > Some questions: > > - In this initial contribution it is proposed the test suite tracks the latest spec > published on TR. If we follow this practice, we should make sure we publish > new WDs frequently enough to make the TR spec a good synchronisation > point (Echidna makes that very easy). Or alternatively, we could agree we > write tests against the latest ED spec. A downside is ED may have more spec > churn, so writing tests against it may be more risky for people who are not > following the spec development closely. However, my assumption is that > most of the test contributions would come from the participants of this > group though, so that would not be a major issue. Your thoughts? Tests based on ED looks good to me. > - What are your thoughts, should we use Critic for this spec's test suite or just > stick with the GH based workflow? I'm not very familiar with Critic, so I'm > interesting in hearing feedback from people who are more familiar with Critic > (Zhiqiang?) on cases when it is particularly useful. Both Critic and GH are OK and acceptable, feel free to use your familiar one or both. Anyone is welcome to review the tests. > Zhiqiang - at our recent F2F you indicated interested to contribute to testing > of this spec. Could you please review [3] and provide feedback in the PR (or > in Critic if you think that'd be a helpful tool to use). Feel free to merge the PR > after review. Yes, I will review it, but please expect this is to be done later next week. If someone reviews it before that time and at least leave a LGTM comment, I can help merge it without my review. Thanks, Zhiqiang
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2015 01:28:02 UTC