W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org > April 2013

Re: RfR: Opera's Server-sent Events tests; deadline April 17

From: <odinho@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:03:06 +0000
To: public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org
Message-ID: <yzpe7i.mlgf1f.1hge16q-qmf@mail.messagingengine.com>
What I think is special about these tests, by the way, is that the submitter, that is Opera won't say: we think every single assertion in this testsuite follows the spec.

Normally, for every other testsuite, you have someone claiming that. If we had said that then I think noone would have a problem merging it right away.

So someone has to parent these tests or say "looks good", because as far as I can see, we don't have that now. If not Tina can say that (or already did, anyone found the mail?).

So this case is a bit special.

What I personally /can/ say is that they are generally correct, but I can't vouch for every assertion as I have not yet gone through them all.

Does that make any sense? Sorry for condensing all that into a possibly insulting word of 'real review'.
Sent from my Nokia N9

On 18.04.13 14:31 Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013, at 14:08, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Odin - what do you mean by "real" here?

Well, one that will find us faults. That doesn't get accepted by
default. Actually there might have been a real review here now, -- but
we don't know that :-)

So if anyone says, "I have looked through them and they're not diverging
from the spec" that's a real review.

> > I personally have the interest, but not the time.
> >
> > So, everyone, do it in GitHub. Find the issues that might be lurking.
> > Can possible start with saying what tests are reviewed. Since this is a
> > full testsuite I think Critic would be much easier to do an actual
> > review in (because you can mark individual files as reviewed).
> Tina - my recollection is that you reviewed Opera's SSE tests. Is that
> true?

A LGTM from Tina would be enough, yes. I understood it as that
gothrough had a scope smaller than looking for faults in each file?

Anyway, they have been reviewed multiple times before, but that was
before many of the spec changes. The tests are quite old. But they
should be mostly correct. And we had Yaffle who corrected many of the
known issues at least. :)


Odin Hørthe Omdal

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 14:03:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:52:57 UTC