- From: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 08:36:22 +0000
- To: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Cc: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CAARdPYf--D4rhniDdwNptpTz_t1HrF_CTDp06v=d3s37pXbwRg@mail.gmail.com>
That's great, thanks for driving this effort, Philippe! On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:00 PM Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > To close the loop on the mailing list: > > The Group approved the test driven approach yesterday and it got > reflected in > [[ > ALL normative spec changes are generally expected to have a > corresponding pull request in web-platforms-tests, either in the form of > new tests or modifications to existing tests, or must include the > rationale for why test updates are not required for the proposed update. > > Typically, both pull requests (spec updates and tests) will be merged at > the same time. If a pull request for the specification is approved but > the other needs more work, add the 'needs tests' label or, in > web-platform-tests, the 'status:needs-spec-decision' label. Note that a > test change that contradicts the specification should not be merged > before the corresponding spec change. > > If testing is not practical due to web-platforms-tests limitations, > please explain why and if appropriate file an issue to follow up later. > ]] > https://github.com/w3c/web-performance/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md > > This now linked from all of the webperf repositories as well. > > Philippe > > On 5/3/2017 9:35 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret wrote: > > On 5/3/2017 8:21 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > >> What are the next steps for actually making this happen? For Service > >> Worker I just added a few lines to CONTRIBUTING.md: > >> https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1131 > > > > I guess we should simply say we adopt this today and assign an action > > item to Xiaoqian or myself (or anyone else eager) to go around and > > update all of our repositories. I'm curious however, did anyone > > implemented a check that fails if no link to WPT is found in a pull > > request comment? > > > > Philippe > > > >> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:35 AM Todd Reifsteck <toddreif@microsoft.com > >> <mailto:toddreif@microsoft.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Late sound off.. but this SGTM as well.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> We have some debt to pay off, but this will pay dividends in the > >> long run!____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> -Todd____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> *From:* Ilya Grigorik [mailto:igrigorik@google.com > >> <mailto:igrigorik@google.com>] > >> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 2:48 PM > >> *To:* Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws <mailto:yoav@yoav.ws>> > >> *Cc:* Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@chromium.org > >> <mailto:foolip@chromium.org>>; Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com > >> <mailto:rbyers@google.com>>; Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org > >> <mailto:plh@w3.org>>; public-web-perf@w3.org > >> <mailto:public-web-perf@w3.org> > >> *Subject:* Re: Adopting a dual spec/testing process for webperf > >> specs____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> sgtm.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws > >> <mailto:yoav@yoav.ws>> wrote:____ > >> > >> I support that proposal as well.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:33 AM Philip Jägenstedt > >> <foolip@chromium.org <mailto:foolip@chromium.org>> wrote:____ > >> > >> I'd love to see this as well, everywhere! It was a genuine > >> surprise to us when adopting it for HTML how well it worked > >> out, and now it's hard to imagine going back. It does > >> require a strong cooperation between spec editor and > >> implementers, if there isn't a sense of shared > >> responsibility, then it'll not be as great I think.____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:35 PM Rick Byers > >> <rbyers@google.com <mailto:rbyers@google.com>> wrote:____ > >> > >> 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 <mailto: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____ > >> > >> __ __ > >> > >> __ __ > >> >
Received on Friday, 5 May 2017 08:37:08 UTC