W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-test-infra@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re: When it is appropriate to use wpt...

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 23:14:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHKdfMitXqUXUkxSP2=t0t7NC-hyQaLp=rtppcz+fiuw3GyO_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Cc: public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com> wrote:
>> I wonder if a WebDriver API would make sense (WebDriver API use
>> inevitably already has security consequences, so I don't think it's
>> too unreasonable); thoughts, anyone, or any better ideas?
> I have a view of this where vendors could supply their own web driver based
> "scripts" to drive the parts of a transaction that might require human
> intervention.  There is a similar problem with Web Annotation - where there
> is no defined UI per se, but of course each client will have one and there
> needs to be a way to prod that client until they spit out an annotation
> object.

I think Andreas's comments about WebDriver likely in future supporting
a permissions API deals with most of the need for that (though not in
the Web Annotation case!).

>> > Is it appropriate to incorporate tests and tools into WPT that will
>> > potentially utilize and/or exercise resources outside of the test server
>> > (e.g., pulling in information from a tester-defined remote resource or
>> > testing the conformance of a tester-defined remote resource)?
>> Yes, I think it is, though I think we should add tools to wpt-tools to
>> keep everything self-contained.
> Can you expand on this?  My examples of external resources would be things
> like the Visa(tm) Web Payment service.  That's not something we can put into
> a self-contained environment.  Maybe *they* can, and I suppose we could
> require that.  But it feels like a high bar to make them leap over.  Also,
> if the Visa(tm) Web Payment service is what is supposed to be under test,
> and we test something different, aren't we violating the basic principle of
> testing ("If it's not the same, it's different.")?

>From the browser testing side: I was imagining a dummy payment service
(given there's no way we can test against live payment services!) in

I expect most of the code needed to test the server-side stuff (e.g.,
the Visa(tm) Web Payment service) would live in wpt.

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 22:15:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:34:12 UTC