Re: [testtwf-shenzhen] Need your input: Writing Webapps tests at TestTWF

In IRC [1], we discussed a couple of other high priority testing tasks 
for WebApps:

1. Analyze Web Messaging test results 

2. Analyze Web Sockets test results 

For both of these, it would be helpful to know if the failures are test 
issues and/or implementation issues and then to file bug reports 

My expectation is for the Test Facilitators (Ken and Kris for Sockets 
and Alex for Messaging)  to lead the analysis but that hasn't been done 
in a Public way that I know about [Jungkee and Tina have done this type 
of analysis for the Progress Events and Server-sent Events specs, 

If the TTWF can help with the above, that would be great.


[1] <>

On 9/6/13 9:54 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 9/5/13 9:37 PM, ext Rebecca Hauck wrote:
>> Hi Webapps-testers,
>> We're kicking off the planning for the next Test the Web Forward 
>> event, which will be part of TPAC this year, held on Saturday, 
>> November 9 at the same conference center, the Wuzhou Guest House. As 
>> we develop the program, we're trying something different and reaching 
>> out to all of the people in the working groups who have an active 
>> interest and knowledge of the test suites.  We've created a mailing 
>> list for these discussions: 
>> <>.  If you respond to this 
>> thread, feel free to drop the –testsuite list from the To: line to if 
>> you'd like to transfer conversations to the new planning list.
>> We'd love your input!
>>   * Which Webapps specs need the most love right now?
> Hi Rebecca, All - thanks very much for your e-mail!
> As to your question, it depends on what you mean by `love` in this 
> context ;-).
> As one can see from scanning the Testing column of WebApps' status 
> page <>, there are many 
> many testing related `opportunities`. I think the following 
> specs/tasks are the `higher` priorities ...
> * WebIDL - we need someone to Review Cameron's tests 
> <> 
> (aka <>).
> The lack of an approved test suite is one reason WebIDL is blocked 
> from advancing to Proposed Recommendation and the lack of a PR is 
> blocking other specs that have a normative reference for WebIDL. If 
> test case review isn't within TTF's scope, that's unfortunate (albeit 
> understandable) but if TTWF can help here (even if only some subset of 
> tests are reviewed), we would greatly appreciate it.
> * IndexedDB - we have several `submissions` that need Review:
> 1. Microsoft 
> <>. 
> This is PR <>.
> 2. Ms2ger 
> <>. 
> This is PR <>.
> 3. Opera 
> <>. 
> This is PR <>.
> 4. TTWF-Paris 
> <>. 
> It appears these are PRs #66-#69
> (See also this tread 
> <>.)
> * File API - this spec should soon enter Last Call Working Draft. It 
> has some submissions 
> <> 
> (PRs #53 and #54), at least six PRs from TTWF-Shanghai and PubStatus 
> says it is "~20% complete". KrisK is the spec's Test Facilitator so it 
> would be good to get his input re the priority tasks and plans for 
> this test suite. For example, it's not clear if the existing coverage 
> is reasonably good, where are the holes, etc.
> * DOM3 Events (moving toward a new LCWD) - Gary and Alex are the Test 
> Facilitators and PubStatus says this test suite is "75% complete". 
> Gary, Alex - what is the status of this test suite? If there are some 
> testing gaps you think the TTWF people should address, please let us 
> know the details.
> * DOM (4/Core) - Aryeh is the Test Facilitator and Ms2ger has been 
> active. PubStatus says this test suite is "50% complete" [I don't 
> recall the provenance of that number ;-)]. Aryeh, Ms2ger - what is the 
> status of this test suite? If there are some testing gaps you think 
> the TTWF people should address, please let us know the details.
> Lastly, although WebApps will accept tests for any of its specs, I 
> think our coverage for the specs listed in the following document is 
> what I will call `reasonable as is` 
> <>.
> If others within WebApps have feedback, please speak up.
> -Thanks, ArtB
>>   * Are you planning on being at TPAC and able to come support new
>>     test authors? (If we've already contacted you individually, you
>>     can skip this part – but still welcome your input on the rest of 
>> this)
>>   * If you aren't able to attend, are you in a timezone that is
>>     conducive to being online to review tests during the event?
>>   * Do you have any other suggestions to test hacking projects at the
>>     event? (for example, are there any existing suites out there that
>>     could be converted and/or contributed to the W3C?)
>> Extra awesome if you have something to contribute here AND you speak 
>> or write Chinese.
>> Please note that we'll do our best to incorporate your feedback, but 
>> it will depend on how well we can support a particular testing area 
>> at the event with experts, reviewers, sample materials, etc.  If you 
>> do give us suggestions, we'll likely follow up with you for help in 
>> getting them into the program.
>> Also, you may soon see that I'm sending a similar email to some of 
>> the other test suite lists. Sorry for the duplicate mails if you're 
>> subscribed to the others; I wanted to keep threads somewhat separated 
>> by WG/topic.
>> Thanks in advance for your input. 'Hope to you see you in Shenzhen!
>> Cheers,
>> -Rebecca & the Test the Web Forward Team

Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 17:12:21 UTC