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

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

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 18:50:17 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbWtk81rqrMO78=aTr4naiVtUdhj3DA71aKaBXxgstiFnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
Cc: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>, Public www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Can you share the plan for http://test.csswg.org/harness/ ? I'm currently
relying on its test runner and test results. Would it switch to wpt when
the merge occurs?


2016-09-30 0:58 GMT+09:00 Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Gérard Talbot
> <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:
> > Le 2016-09-27 12:23, Geoffrey Sneddon a écrit :
> >> 3. Ensure web-platform-tests's documentation is up-to-date and
> >> cohesive, both for submitting tests and reviewing them.
> >
> >
> > Geoffrey,
> >
> > 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.
> Our current documentation seems to be primarily
> <http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html>, given the
> old documentation at <https://wiki.csswg.org/test/review> has a big
> notice at the top. Is there some other documentation I've missed
> somewhere?
> >> 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.
> >
> > Eg
> > Say I want to add a comment to 001 test in Shepherd:
> > http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/testcase/001/
> > Will I be able to if http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/ becomes read-only?
> See below.
> > Eg
> > Is https://hg.csswg.org/test/ not already read-only?
> It's not, because it's where you push to (i.e., `hg push` uses HTTP
> PUSH and PUT requests to that site). More below…
> So, nobody seems to have sent any email about what was resolved at the
> SF F2F, beyond that in the minutes. I presume everyone took it to be
> someone else's problem. :)
> The intent is that everything goes through GitHub in future
> (especially once merged with web-platform-tests!), to unify where all
> our issues are tracked (for similar reasons as to why all technical
> feedback on drafts has moved to GitHub; we currently have issues
> tracked in Shepherd, on public-css-testsuite, and on GitHub, which
> means if you want to find known issues in a given test you have to
> look in three places), and to avoid the somewhat awkward
> two-way-mirror between Mercurial and Git. Moving to GitHub also allows
> us to do review-then-commit, as opposed to our current status quo of
> review-then-commit on GitHub and commit-then-review on Mercurial.
> Part of this is being driven by the desire to merge everything with
> web-platform-tests so that we have all tests for the web platform in
> one repository with one way of getting a list of tests to run, one set
> of ways of running the tests, and one way to contribute tests. As it
> is, web-platform-tests gets far more attention from browser developers
> (both in terms of running tests and submitting them), which is
> something we rather want!
> Essentially, we're asking those currently using Mercurial and/or
> Shepherd to move to GitHub. There's some documentation when it comes
> to GitHub at <http://testthewebforward.org/docs/github-101.html>, but
> I think nowadays there's better documentation elsewhere.
> <http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Git_vs_Mercurial> has a decent comparison
> between git and hg, including corresponding commands. (There's a few
> things to note: most obviously that git has a staging area between the
> working copy and the commit tree, whereas hg does not; as a result,
> you have to `git add` files that are already in the tree to get them
> in the staging area to then be committed.) I don't know if the Pro Git
> book (<https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2>) would be helpful; it may be a
> bit too in-depth for many trying to just start using it!
> FWIW, there is some plan to extract all the data currently in Shepherd
> into GitHub issues, but there's not really currently a timeline for
> that.
> /gsnedders
Received on Friday, 30 September 2016 09:51:11 UTC

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