Re: Micropub test suite

Wow! That was a fast turn around time, Awesome!

On Mar 6, 2017 7:54 PM, "Ben Roberts" <benjamin.a.roberts83@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wow! That was a fast turn around time.  Awesome!
>
> On Mar 6, 2017 7:52 PM, "Aaron Parecki" <aaron@parecki.com> wrote:
>
>> We now have a client test suite for creating posts! Also the good news is
>> that the test suite passes itself, as demonstrated in the below video.
>>
>>
>> This is live on the micropub.rocks website now! You can read more about
>> the details here:
>>
>> https://aaronparecki.com/2017/03/06/14/day-76-micropub-rocks-client-tests
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Aaron Parecki
>> aaronparecki.com
>> @aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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> 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> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>