W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-test-infra@w3.org > April to June 2017

Defacto tests (Was: Tentative tests)

From: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 23:12:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CAARdPYcfAqmmxdywBynoxabX4wURFfyWMYcg0xPTC-GiWgsgNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
Cc: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Mark Dittmer <markdittmer@chromium.org>, Patrick Kettner <patket@microsoft.com>, public-test-infra@w3.org
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:05 PM Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org> wrote:
> > In terms of the semantics of directories, haven't we said previously
> that a
> > "defacto" sub-directory (or filename suffix) is OK for tests which pass
> in
> > practice but aren't properly specified yet?
> I haven't seen that in the documentation.
> My suggestion to Mike West is put tentative in the documentation (and
> maybe some of the test runner stuff needs updating to ignore these
> resources although I guess that thing was broken anyway). That makes
> it more final and provides a clear path for any appeals.

It looks like "defacto" hasn't been discussed on this list. A top-level
defacto/ directory would be a bit worrisome if nobody wanted to maintain it
and try to explain with specs over time. Inside well-maintained test suites
for well-maintained specs I think it'd probably be fine, though,
functioning like a TODO and a regression test at once.

I've not been involved in any of the previous discussion, are there a few
concrete examples by which to judge this idea?
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 23:12:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:34:13 UTC