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

Re: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: merge csswg-test into web-platform-tests

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:44:33 -0400
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
Cc: Public www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0a74686e67a69b747ce0500c861060f1@gtalbot.org>
Le 2016-09-27 12:23, Geoffrey Sneddon a écrit :
> (Bcc'd public-css-testsuite and public-test-infra; this pertains to a
> CSS WG proposed resolution and hence we should keep discussion on the
> CSS WG's public mailing list.)
> The proposed resolution is to merge csswg-test into
> web-platform-tests, doing the following:
> 1. Land https://github.com/w3c/wpt-tools/pull/90 into wpt-tools so
> that the web-platform-tests tools create an accurate manifest (i.e.,
> list of tests) for the CSS testsuite.
> 2. Add a number of lints to wpt-tools, for the (currently
> non-existent) css subdirectory, to ensure that the build system keeps
> working (primarily we need lints to ensure that we have no duplicate
> file-extensionless-basenames that aren't byte-for-byte identical and
> that all files referenced by test files are in an adjacent support or
> reference directory, with a couple of exceptions).
> 3. Ensure web-platform-tests's documentation is up-to-date and
> cohesive, both for submitting tests and reviewing them.


My main request regarding reviewing tests is that reviewing tasks 
(procedures, steps, requirements, areas to check, what's decisive, 
important, critical, etc) will be specified and explicit: what should be 
reviewed, how it should be reviewed, what test authors should expect, 
what is expected from reviewers, from a review, etc... would be 
specified and explicit. The current documentation is, in my opinion, 
already doing an excellent job in that regard as it covered a wide range 
of possible situations and parameters.

> Especially
> make sure it's easier to find documentation than it is currently!
> 4. Make https://hg.csswg.org/test/ and http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/
> read-only. (Really this can be any step up until this point; exact
> timing doesn't matter.)

I am sorry... I am not sure I understand what you mean by make those 
read-only (and what would that imply) and I use and have used 
exclusively Mercurial and Shepherd in the last 5 years.

Say I want to add a comment to 001 test in Shepherd:
Will I be able to if http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/ becomes read-only?

Is https://hg.csswg.org/test/ not already read-only?


> 5. Merge csswg-test into web-platform-tests, in a css/ subdirectory,
> maintaining all csswg-test history. (Do we want to copy w3ctestlib and
> apiclient into it as well, given they currently live in Mercurial, and
> are needed to build?)
> 6. Move over, at the very least, all open issues and PRs from the
> csswg-test repository.
> 7. (Sometime in the more distant future) drop the current build system
> and the lints we had for its requirements.
> I believe Alan's opinion was to give people a week to respond on the
> mailing list and then potentially have a final call for objections (or
> discussion!) on the next telecon (5 Oct). I'll let the chairs to say
> what they want to do, though. :)
> /Geoffrey.

Test Format Guidelines

Test Style Guidelines

Test Templates

CSS Naming Guidelines

Test Review Checklist

CSS Metadata
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 22:45:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:04 UTC