- From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:00:30 +0100
- To: marcosc@opera.com
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 11 May 2010, at 15:58, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Scott Wilson > <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Marcos, >> >> I'll make a start on tests for the assertions about correctly processing the element (6-13). I've checked in tests for ta-6 through ta-9. >> I'm not sure about assertion 5, however - how would you tell if it had been processed at an inappropriate point? What difference would it make? And how could you test it? >> >> "Assertion ta-5: Secondly, a user agent MUST apply the rule for processing an access element at the appropriate point in the algorithm to process a configuration document: the appropriate point is where the algorithm allows for processing 'any other type of element' [[!WIDGETS]]." [1] > > Tests would be having an access element at the top, middle, and end of > the document and also making sure that it does not get processed when > nested inside another element. > > so 1: > <widget..> > <name/> > <access .../ > > </widget> > > 2: > <widget..> > <access ... /> > <name/> > </widget> > > 3: > <widget..> > <name/> > <access ... > > <description/> > </widget> So presumably the access element is ignored in cases 2 & 3, even if the element itself is valid? I'm not sure if that's such a great idea for interoperability. Unless of course it is processed, just after processing the P&C elements, which has no discernible effect on the processed widget and doesn't really make it testable. Maybe I'm just missing something here! > 4: (which would cause it to be ignored) > <widget..> > <name><access ... ></name> > </widget> OK, I'll make a test for that case. > > > > >> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/test-suite/ >> >> S >> >> On 4 May 2010, at 15:23, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Scott Wilson >>> <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Wookie has implemented WARP, so we can try out the tests as soon as they are >>>> available. >>> >>> I'm seriously not getting the cycles to do this. Scott, any chance you >>> could help us out? >>> >>> According to [1], there is only around 15 assertions... that roughly >>> equates to 45 tests. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Marcos >>> >>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access/test-suite/ >>> >>> -- >>> Marcos Caceres >>> Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/ >>> http://datadriven.com.au >> >> >> > > > > -- > Marcos Caceres > Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/ > http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 19:01:00 UTC