- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:18:15 +0300
- To: Jan-Arve Saether <jana@birdstep.org>
- Cc: "<Www-Dom-Ts@W3.Org>" <www-dom-ts@W3.Org>
On Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 02:15 PM, Jan-Arve Saether wrote: > After a brief look at the tests, I am still missing some important > tests (I am not sure how many new tests have been added since the NIST > tests) > > I am missing tests that actually test *all* functions on an interface, > including testing methods on interfaces that was inherited, even if they > make no sense. > [dd] Pretty early on, there was an implicit understanding that not all facets of a particular method could be tested as this introduces an ever-growing set of tests that would need to be written. I'm not all too happy about this, so please provide any feedback/ideas on how we could solve this (for practical reasons, however, we are limiting the TS to testing the most basic functions of each method). > (For example, Text::getChildNodes should return a NodeList with no > nodes. > The same goes for ProcessingInstruction::getFirstChild etc. The list > goes > on.) > > What we have done where I am working is to test absolutely all functions > on one interface, and then test if the method behaves as expected. > (E.g test if Text::getFirstChild returns NULL etc.) > > I consider a conformance test to be incomplete if such tests are not > included. > > Are somebody working on this issue? > > Best regards > Jan-Arve SÊther >
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 07:23:13 UTC