W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Agenda item for next Conference Call: Test Suite Analysis

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:51:14 +1300
To: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20101028035114.GO10034@wok.mcc.id.au>
Hi Patrick.

Patrick Dengler:
> The following have specific issues identified; they may have been removed from the final test suite
> interact-order-03-b.svg
> Test case seems wrong -- removeDefault is called, so clicks will not
> be able to select.  If you select all, we pass

Agreed.  The preventDefault() call will prevent any of the text within
the <a> from being selectable with the mouse.

> pservers-pattern-09-f.svg 
> Cannot find case

Not sure what “cannot find case” means.  The test is still un-reviewed,
though.  Is the issue that the spec doesn’t say what to do if the
xlink:href="" doesn’t reference a <pattern> element?  If so, then I
agree that the test isn’t supported by the spec.  The “halt rendering”
behaviour of implnote.html would seem to be required here.

(Ideally we’d define this for <linearGradient> and <radialGradient>,

> struct-image-12-b.svg
> No pass conditions

I’d classify that as an unfinished test.

> text-align-07-t.svg
> Test needs updated (tiny is updated)

What specifically needs updating?  Assuming that Arial Unicode MS,
Georgia, Times New Roman, Times and/or MS Mincho be available might be
an issue, but apart from that nothing stood out to me.

> text-fonts-202-t.svg
> Support file not linked

That was raised for text-fonts-203-t.svg recently, too.

> types-dom-08-f.svg
> Cannot find case

Details, please.

> The following test cases include SMIL, which either is not integral to
> the tests, or should be renamed/categorized as animate-

As a general comment, we haven’t had particularly strict rules about
naming tests.  The approach I have taken is finding the section for the
“main” thing the test is testing, and looking up the corresponding test
prefix in http://dev.w3.org/SVG/docs/SVGTestSuite-howto.html, creating
one if that section didn’t have one.

A general question, then: is it particularly important how the tests are
named?  What if a test is deemed to use two major features equally in
combination, how should it be categorised?

> paths-dom-02-f.svg

This doesn’t use SMIL.

> pservers-grad-19-b.svg

This seems to be testing explicitly that the color, stop-color and
stop-opacity properties are animatable and have the right effect.  One
particular tricky thing it seems to be doing is making sure that
animating the color property affects a currentColor value appropriately.

So yes animation is integral to this test, but I would say it is more a
test of those properties being animated than the “core animation”
features being tested.

> struct-dom-08-f.svg

I this test I used the <animate> element just to generate timing events.
The test needs to call suspendRedraw() at some time t1, and then call
unsuspendRedraw() at some later point t2 where t1 ≤ t2 ≤ t1 + 10s.  We
can’t rely on setTimeout for this, since that’s not an SVG 1.1 feature.

> interact-events-203-t.svg

I think animation is integral in this test, since it is testing that
animations within <use> element subtrees work, and that bubbling of
events from the shadow tree up to the real DOM can be used to trigger

I’d classify this as a combination animation, event processing and <use>
element test.

> interact-pevents-02-t.svg

This one I would classify as an incidental use of animation.  The test
is clearly testing pointer events, and not animation per se.

> interact-pevents-07-t.svg


> interact-pevents-201-t.svg

Ditto.  (That is definitely a hard test to operate, incidentally!)

> interact-pevents-202-t.svg


> script-elem-01-b.svg

This is testing that a particular attribute is not animatable.  I would
classify that as testing the definition of the attribute more than
testing core animation features.

> struct-dom-09-b.svg

This tests SVGSVGElement.getCurrentTime(), which is defined in the
struct.html chapter.

> The following test cases include SVG Fonts, which either is not
> integral to the tests, or should be renamed/categorized as fonts-
> text-text-04-t.svg

I would say the use of SVG fonts in this test is simply to make visual
inspection of the test result easier.  So not integral, agreed.  But the
main purpose of the test is testing x="" and y="" on <text>, so
categorising it as text-text- makes sense to me.

> text-text-05-t.svg


> text-text-06-t.svg

In this one a font with a ligature is required, so I would say it’s
integral to this test.  But again, it’s the x/y attributes primarily
being tested, not the ability to support SVG Fonts.

> masking-mask-01-b.svg

Use of SVG Fonts here is useful for the test, to ensure that it is
positioned appropriately wrt the mask.  Again, it’s testing masks, not

> pservers-grad-08-b.svg

Ditto (but for gradients).

> render-elems-06-t.svg

I’d say this is incidental use of SVG Fonts.

> render-elems-07-t.svg


> render-elems-08-t.svg

Ditto.  (And to be honest, this test looks redundant with

> text-align-08-b.svg

This seems to be quite similar to text-align-07-t.svg, just with an SVG
Font showing triangles rather than the expected glyphs.  So perhaps I
would classify this as testing a combination of SVG Fonts and text
baseline alignment.

Summarising, I would say that perhaps for a couple of them you could
argue they should be named differently, but most of the above seem
appropriately named to me.  Renaming means losing CVS history, and
losing recorded results against the original name.  I’m not sure it’s
worth it.

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 03:51:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:29:44 UTC