Re: Adopting a dual spec/testing process for webperf specs

I'd (unsurprisingly) love to see this!

Note that when new features ship in blink we're now asking people
<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/blink-dev/web-platform-tests%7Csort:relevance/blink-dev/leQDM4nhGHA/Gy5LHezwCAAJ>
to explain any cases where web exposed behavior does not have
web-platform-tests.  So we expect writing web-platform-tests to
increasingly be part of any blink implementation.  Hopefully that means
this is less of a burden on spec editors than it might first seem (and
ultimately less of a burden on engine developers since we get to share most
of this work across companies and do less engine-specific test work).

Rick

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:

> Our specifications and our tests are out of sync. Most often, the tests
> are behind (eg Beacon) and sometimes, the tests are ahead (eg User Timing).
> This is costing us dearly in the long run imho (eg TAO,
> user-timing/mark/measure).
>
> I'd like to propose that the Working Group adopts a dual spec/testing
> process, similar to the one applied in the pointer events working group [1]
> and the whatwg [2]:
>
> [[
> Normative spec changes are generally expected to have a corresponding pull
> request in web-platform-test. Outstanding test work is tracked via issues
> in this repository and issues generally remain open until both spec and
> test changes land. If one PR is approved but the other needs more work, add
> the 'do not merge yet' label or, in web-platform-tests, the
> 'status:needs-spec-decision' label.
> ]]
>
> wdyt?
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/pointerevents/blob/gh-pages/README.markdown
> [2] https://github.com/whatwg/meta/blob/master/TEAM.md
>