W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Towards a better testsuite: Build System

From: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:42:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ_uYVocmxrberJvyjV43muJAx8nkvCoHZPVW71qjECoL6PA0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Mike Smith <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 8, 2016 19:01, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> However, individual vendors may need scripts to convert the
> test-reference linkages into their preferred format E.g.
> for Mozilla, we do need to generate reftest manifest files,
> which are currently constructed by the build system. But
> that can be done with a lighter-weight system that just
> generates manifests in place per directory.

We don't, actually. We already run reftests from wpt using its manifest
format; there's no reason to use reftest.list.

> (As for adopting a "filename convention" for mapping the
> tests and references... No. There are thousands of CSS tests
> that use the same reference file. Whoever wants a "filename
> convention" can make 1000 copies of each common reference if
> they want, but I refuse to support such nonsense in the CSSWG
> repository.)

Where did anybody suggest that? Wpt uses a filename convention to mark
manual tests, but not for reftests.

Received on Saturday, 9 April 2016 11:42:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:58 UTC