Re: Micropub test suite

Apparently I wasn't paying enough attention at this point of the meeting 
last week.  Sorry for not catching this.

To answer the question: I'm pretty sure we did not explicitly, with full 
consideration, agree to relax our previous plan of having complete test 
suites.  I see how that's implicit in the decision we made, and I recall 
Aaron mentioning it, so maybe everyone else thought it through, but in 
the mix of all the things going on during that meeting, I didn't put 2+2 
together.

I agree we should be consistent on this.   In general, I'd say every 
constraint in the spec ought to have a few tests.   That's not a 
constraint of W3C process though -- the WG is free to set a different 
bar for interoperability and confirming implementations -- but we 
probably do need to be rational and consistent in setting that bar.

So, which way do we want to go on this?

And Aaron, how much of a burden would it be to finish that test suite 
(or can we recruit someone else to do it?)

     -- Sandro


On 03/06/2017 10:20 AM, Amy G wrote:
> Given the resolution about advancing Micropub to PR at the last 
> meeting, did the working group decide that we don't need actually need 
> complete test suites to progress to PR so long as there are reports? 
> Does this also apply to LDN, WebSub and ActivityPub?
>
> On 6 March 2017 at 23:05, Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com 
> <mailto:aaron@parecki.com>> wrote:
>
>     Correct, I have a start to the client tests but I haven't launched
>     it on the site yet. The implementation reports for clients are all
>     self reported.
>     On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:49 AM Amy G <amy@rhiaro.co.uk
>     <mailto:amy@rhiaro.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>         Hola,
>
>         Just to confirm - there are no tests for Micropub clients
>         right? You can only test a server implementation with the
>         current test suite?
>
>         Amy
>
>