Re: Micropub test suite

Nice one! Thanks Aaron.

On Mar 7, 2017 8:56 AM, "Ben" <ben@thatmustbe.me> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>