W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2013

Areas missing tests most

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:49:21 +0100
Message-ID: <5124F081.7000000@w3.org>
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
CC: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>

so I've sort of been staring at coverage, the spec, and grepping through 
the test suite to find those top area where we're lacking coverage that 
I think can make a decent hit list. I've also looked through the 
submissions so as to factor in things that we have but that aren't 
counted just yet. I'm copying James for sanity checking.

My first impression is that I'm wondering if trying to acquire more 
tests is really the top priority. It seems that for most large features 
that I have tried where tests are missing in the approved parts, we 
actually have a submission. This includes things like sandboxing, 
History, AppCache, rPH/rCH, and other stuff that might not be easy to tests.

So I wonder if a better first focus wouldn't be to improve our 
throughput in accepting submissions. There 3500 files in there and 6600 
occurrences of "assert_" (which probably maps to a fair bit more tests).

Other than that, the list could include:

 I am under the impression that we don't have much testing for 
"Browsing the Web" 

 We have no discernible tests for <dialog>, <menu>, <details> and 

 There are some tests about the new input types, but they are few and 
far between (and most seem to be about DND). Likewise <datalist> 

 We have nothing for <style scoped>.

 We have nothing for <iframe seamless>.

 We have nothing for <embed>.

 We have very little for <base>, I think nothing that really tests it.

I think that's the gist of it, overall.

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 15:49:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:41 UTC