- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:21:35 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Well, you have described the options. You could simply record the things that were failed, and define yourself a nearlyPassed result (I guess it is a subtype of fail) with the semantics that everything except those things listed as failed have been passed. In my tools the default result is (explicitly) notTested. You could set up your tools so the default is assumed to be passed, unless there is a fail result recorded, and then just not record the test-by-test results. Having a property like "nearlyPassed" to make this explicit is pretty similar. Do you think there are grounds for trying to include it in a new EARL draft? cheers Chaals On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Jim Ley wrote: > >Hi, > >Is there a mechanism for saying that all tests in a suite were passed, other >than the listed ones, I'm currently looking at something which might have >many of thousands of tests, of which 95% will be passed, a certain few >however won't, as long as they were tested, the passes aren't that >interesting (I'll expect them to pass) so don't want them filling up my >triple store etc. > >I don't recall any mechanism for this, other than perhaps grouping >testsuites and saying that the group passed, which will reduce the number >required, but make things more complicated, and I don't think the groupings >can be sensibly designed until we have the information back on what's >failing. > >Are there any options? > >Jim. > Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22 Post: 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia or W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Sunday, 14 September 2003 23:21:35 UTC