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

Re: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: merge csswg-test into web-platform-tests

From: Ms2ger <Ms2ger@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:53:03 +0200
To: public-test-infra@w3.org
Message-ID: <0741eea4-1f29-1d03-8c2f-3e30f56ba235@gmail.com>
On 27/09/16 18:23, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> (Bcc'd public-css-testsuite and public-test-infra; this pertains to a
> CSS WG proposed resolution and hence we should keep discussion on the
> CSS WG's public mailing list.)
> The proposed resolution is to merge csswg-test into
> web-platform-tests, doing the following:
> 1. Land https://github.com/w3c/wpt-tools/pull/90 into wpt-tools so
> that the web-platform-tests tools create an accurate manifest (i.e.,
> list of tests) for the CSS testsuite.
> 2. Add a number of lints to wpt-tools, for the (currently
> non-existent) css subdirectory, to ensure that the build system keeps
> working (primarily we need lints to ensure that we have no duplicate
> file-extensionless-basenames that aren't byte-for-byte identical and
> that all files referenced by test files are in an adjacent support or
> reference directory, with a couple of exceptions).
> 3. Ensure web-platform-tests's documentation is up-to-date and
> cohesive, both for submitting tests and reviewing them. Especially
> make sure it's easier to find documentation than it is currently!
> 4. Make https://hg.csswg.org/test/ and http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/
> read-only. (Really this can be any step up until this point; exact
> timing doesn't matter.)
> 5. Merge csswg-test into web-platform-tests, in a css/ subdirectory,
> maintaining all csswg-test history. (Do we want to copy w3ctestlib and
> apiclient into it as well, given they currently live in Mercurial, and
> are needed to build?)
> 6. Move over, at the very least, all open issues and PRs from the
> csswg-test repository.
> 7. (Sometime in the more distant future) drop the current build system
> and the lints we had for its requirements.
> I believe Alan's opinion was to give people a week to respond on the
> mailing list and then potentially have a final call for objections (or
> discussion!) on the next telecon (5 Oct). I'll let the chairs to say
> what they want to do, though. :)

Strongly support all of this. Thanks for doing the work.


Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 10:53:47 UTC

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