W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > June 2014

Re: [webappsec] Help build the CSP test suite at Test the Web Forward Portland, August 3

From: Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 00:14:30 +0000
To: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
CC: "jgraham@hoppipolla.co.uk" <jgraham@hoppipolla.co.uk>
Message-ID: <CFB5002C.4FD68%rhauck@adobe.com>


On 6/4/14, 3:27 PM, "James Graham" <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:

>(note: I am not on public-webappsec so please CC me explicitly)
>
>On 04/06/14 22:39, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014, at 22:53, Hill, Brad wrote:
>>> Can you point me at how users can see/test changes in real-time?  That
>>> was the other issue I had with using the "canonical" repo - with only
>>>me
>>> contributing, there was nobody who really had it on their TODO list to
>>> review and approve my submissions, so merge times when I was working on
>>> CORS tests were on the order of 6-8 weeks, and only after I jumped up
>>>and
>>> down and waved a big flag.  That's just not workable to have multiple
>>> people contributing and be so out of sync.
>> 
>> The review time is indeed a problem. But the outstanding reviews is much
>> more visible now than before. And we are reviewing more than before.
>> It's still a problem though. More people should review, especially
>> people who know the specs.
>> 
>> For events such as TTWF it is quite crucial to have people reviewing
>> tests just as they come in.  It can be the present experts doing it in
>> GitHub at the place, or people contributing remotely.  I also think it
>> would be very helpful if some of the best people reviewed others' tests
>> at the event.
>
>Yes, this should be an important function of experts at events. Indeed
>the best way to work would be to have the expert review the test
>alongside the author in realtime so they can easily understand how
>review works, what is being looked for, and what the issues are with
>their test.

Sort of a side point to this is that experts & attendees are encouraged to
continue on after the event.  It¹s very common to have PRs in progress at
the end of the day and even people just submitting initial PRs under the
wire. We always wish we had more time. Admittedly, we haven¹t done the
best job at staying engaged with new contributors after the event, but
that was indeed one of the original goals of this movement. I¹ve also made
open calls to mailing lists in the days after events asking for reviews on
remaining open TestTWF PRs with some moderate success.


>
>> We had an automatic pull request viewing system before, that was synced
>> to w3c-test.org, -- that seems to currently be down (due to changes?).
>> Having  pr-<number>.w3c-test.org  would be quite cool. I'd like to see
>> something like that turn up again. I remember seeing many reviews about
>> syncing and server setup, so I hope that's what those reviews were for.
>
>That still happens; submissions go under
>w3c-test.org/submissions/<pr-number>. If the submitter is not a
>"collaborator" on the w-p-t repo, someone who is needs to add a comment
>"w3c-test:mirror" to cause the mirroring to occur.
>
>Regarding the earlier discussion about using web-platform-tests vs a
>custom repository, there are a number of reasons to prefer using
>web-platform-tests even if some tests require unusual server side setups
>that cannot be provided in all environments yet.

The only thing I have to add here is be careful about using custom
repositories because of CLA issues. Tobie set it up so that making the
pull request is equivalent to the Grant of License, as defined in the root
of the repo [1]. If for some reason you decide to use another repo that
does not have this file (I think a fork is fine), people will need to fill
out the old form [2].

>
>As Odin pointed out, wptserve provides the same level of control as PHP
>for inspecting the request and sending the response. You have absolute
>control over which bytes are sent over the wire and when. There are also
>a number of features specifically optimised for writing tests.
>
>Using web-platform-tests makes it possible to reuse almost all the
>documentation that exists at testthewebforward.org. People who are
>confortable with writing tests for some other spec can dive right in
>without having to learn anything new about where the tests are hosted,
>how they are written, or whatever.
>
>Self-hosted tests won't actually get used in browser CI systems, since
>those are generally forbidden from accessing external hosts for reasons
>of reliability. Therefore such an approach is of limited usefulness. On
>the other hand, at least at Mozilla, we have made big progress in
>running web-platform-tests on CI and, with a little more work on
>stability, should be running them on each commit. At present encrypted
>connections are not supported simply because it's a difficult problem
>and it's a higher priority to get things working at all. But other
>Mozilla testsuites such as mochitest do support this, and we should be
>able to leverage the techniques they use for
>web-platform-tests-on-Mozilla-infrastructure. I imagine other vendors
>have similar solutions. So once webappssec tests are in
>web-platform-tests it's much more likely that we will do any extra work
>needed to get them running on our CI system because it will fit with our
>general future plans in that area.


[1] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
[2] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/testgrants2-200409/
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2014 00:15:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:05 UTC