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

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

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:39:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJdbnODD7Z6RrqXZ9Jf=xJYnG7non91zNevU4ReZLhFx4w9Y-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
Cc: public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
And this, my friends, is why I ask the questions.  Okay - so extra "server"
code goes into wpt-tools.  And tests go into wpt itself.

One thing we are considering is a declarative grammar for some of the
requirements that would be parsed and generate/model some of the tests.
That parsing could be "client-side" or "server-side".  I don't think we
care which.  Historically this has been done either place.  Is there a
preference in this community?  Is there a precedent?  (I HATE breaking new
ground.)

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> wpt-tools.
> >
> >
> > Me too.  Although it might not be in wpt-tools.  I mean, it could be.
> But
> > it could just be in the "test suite" couldn't it?  Or are there
> sandboxing
> > restrictions that mean plugins / extensions to the server.py script
> (pipes)
> > need to be outside of the test suite folder?
>
> The only reason (and IMO good reason) is to be consistent with how we
> deal with everything else which has extra server code, like
> WebSockets.
>
> /Geoffrey
>



-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 23:40:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 21 April 2016 23:40:02 UTC