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

Re: Defacto tests (Was: Tentative tests)

From: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 13:56:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CAARdPYfxqA52twveNDhxUbm=uRLFF7Eo2S9eM33xrWvJ426ZLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Mark Dittmer <markdittmer@chromium.org>, Patrick Kettner <patket@microsoft.com>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
If we require that each defacto test points to an issue about the missing
spec, this could give us useful clues about which specs are most in need to
writing. We could make this part of the lint, perhaps.

However it's implemented, if the bar for adding defacto tests is moderately
high, then I share the hunch that it'd be a net positive.

Is there anyone that would object to it regardless of how bar the bar is?
If not, then how about:

   - All such tests are in defacto/
   - Each test in there should link to an issue with the defacto label
   - I volunteer to look at the issues each quarter and report to

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 8:01 AM Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 5:18 AM Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com> wrote:
>>> > > My favorite example is hit-testing.  hit-testing is largely
>>> interoperable
>>> > > already, and it's usually fairly obvious what the correct behavior
>>> is, but
>>> > > it would likely be a huge effort to spec properly.  However there
>>> are some
>>> > > special cases, and engines do occasionally make changes to align
>>> between
>>> > > browsers.  In those cases it totally seems worth the effort to
>>> capture some
>>> > > of the discussion and web compat lessons in tests, even if we can't
>>> justify
>>> > > the cost of writing a full hit-testing spec.
>>> >
>>> > Why can't we justify that cost? If it's as interoperable as you say it
>>> > should actually be fairly easy to write down... I'm also pretty sure
>>> > that because it's not written down we continue to run into issues and
>>> > have a hard time defining new features that interact with hit testing
>>> > or mean to adjust it (such as pointer-events). That nobody has taken
>>> > the time doesn't mean it's not worth it.
>> If there are real-world issues with interop around hit-testing we should
>> absolutely use those to increase the priority of writing a spec. I filed this
>> tracking bug
>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=590296> in
>> chromium, but still have only the single example
>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=417667> that led
>> me to file the bug. Personally I'm most interested in the "this real
>> website behaves differently in different browsers and there's no agreement
>> on which one is right" sort of issue, but I suppose "speccing this new
>> feature was more contentious / time-consuming because hit-testing isn't
>> defined" should count for something too.
>> I've been assuming that the only right way to specify hit-testing is to
>> update essentially every spec that talks about drawing something (i.e. at
>> least all CSS specs) to also explicitly describe hit-testing.  That's what
>> I'm saying seems like a huge undertaking for relatively little benefit. But
>> maybe there's a more creative way we could do this that would be
>> worthwhile?  Eg. a single spec that defines hit-testing as a relatively
>> small delta to all the painting specs somehow?  I have a hard time
>> imagining how this could be very precise, but maybe that's ok?
>> Anyway I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this - I'm all for
>> someone giving speccing this a shot. I just think it's complicated and
>> contentious enough that I don't have anyone on my team who I could
>> reasonably ask to do it.  But I certainly could ask people to land tests
>> for some of the edge case behavior of hit-testing.
>>> To spell it out, I suppose the concern with adding tests before
>>> there's a spec is that it would affect the likelihood of a spec ever
>>> being written? That seems plausible in some cases, as adding another
>>> defacto test will always be less work than writing a whole new spec.
>> Yeah we definitely don't want to use tests as a crutch, I agree with
>> that. I was actually hoping this would be the opposite in practice though.
>> Eg. rather than everyone saying "oh that's hit-testing which is undefined,
>> just paper over it because it's way too hard to do anything else" (the
>> status quoa for over a decade), we'd have a foot in the door. We could
>> start building up a body of interesting tests, and those would cause some
>> discussion ("why should this test do X but that one does Y?") which would
>> naturally build to ".... that makes sense, but we really should write that
>> down in a spec somewhere".
> If we don't allow tests for things that don't yet have a spec, I believe
> the most common scenario will be the status quo of each vendor writing the
> tests in their own repo and still not writing a spec. Realistically, when a
> bug is filed and I write a test and change behavior, it's not practical to
> expect me to block fixing that one bug on writing a spec if no such spec
> exists.
> Like Rick, I believe that building up a corpus of tests makes it more
> likely a spec will get written eventually. It exposes more the areas where
> we lack interoperability (increasing the visibility of the need for a
> spec), actually improves interoperability (makes it easier to write a spec
> since browsers agree more) and directly makes it easier for a spec editor
> to write a high quality first draft.
>> Still, there are probably cases where the options are shared defacto
>>> tests and no spec, or no shared tests and no spec. If we could
>>> magically allow for just those cases, I guess that'd be
>>> uncontroversial?
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2017 13:57:20 UTC

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