Re: [W3C Web Crypto WG] about tests

On 12/17/2014 07:49 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 12/17/14, 7:13 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:
>> But to put this into perspecive, if we want ShadowDOM quality
>> tests, there's still lots more to do.
> 
> Just to note, the shadow DOM tests are not very good.  They didn't catch
> any of the many cases in which Google's implementation totally didn't
> match the spec, because they only did basic functionality testing, not
> interesting edge case testing.

What in your opinion is a *good* test suite?

We are trying to do labor/time estimates inside W3C right now.

There's all sorts of levels of complexity one can do with testing, and I
think how much testing we do depends on how much the WG can do and if
W3C can be successful in more resources.

Alot depends on implementers - if they are totally happy with their
current test-suites/interop, then we can do less, but we'd like the best
quality test-suite we can get within our resources/time.

      cheers,
         harry

> 
> -Boris
> 

Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 12:10:40 UTC