W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2017

Re: Unifying testsuite policy and getting rid of CSS exceptions

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:50:35 +0100
To: public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c7ebe9ec-e2e6-6d17-c8bd-c90dffdc428f@gsnedders.com>


On 15/09/17 00:46, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14/09/17 19:23, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
>> The question is where we go from here, and there are three sides to this.
>>
>> 1. What we do with existing tests:
>>
>> a. We keep them where they are now.
>>
>> b. We move all CSS WG spec test suites into css/.
>>
>> c. We move all CSS WG spec test suites to the top-level.
>>
>>
>> 1. Do we remove the versioning from future CSS WG test suites:
>>
>> a. Yes.
>>
>> b. No.
>>
>>
>> 2. Where do new test suites go:
>>
>> a. At the top level.
>>
>> b. In css/.
>>
>> c. Up to the editor of the individual spec.
>>
>>
>> 3. Do we move existing tests to match the above?
>>
>> a. Yes.
>>
>> b. No.
>>
>>
>> 4. Where do we run the extra CSS lints:
>>
>> a. Only in css/.
>>
>> b. In all directories containing tests for CSS WG specs.
>>
>>
>> As far as I'm aware, the status-quo is 1a, 2a, 3b, 4a. The CSS WG's
>> preference is 1b, 2b, 3c, and I assume 4b (given without it the CSS
>> WG's tooling is likely to get pretty broken pretty fast).
> 
> Well, I screwed up here.
> 
> The survey meant to end up as:
> 
> 1. Do we put new test suites for CSS WG specs in versioned directories:
> 
> a. Yes
> 
> b. No
> 
> 
> 2. Where do new test suites for CSS WG specs go:
> 
> a. At the top level
> 
> b. In css/
> 
> c. Either at the top level or in css/, with no preference between either
> except for being consistently in one
> 
> d. Up to the editor of the individual spec as to whether they want to
> use the CSS WG tooling
> 
> 
> 3. Do we move existing tests to match the above:
> 
> a. Yes
> 
> b. No
> 
> 
> 4. Where do we run the extra CSS-only lints:
> 
> a. Only in css/
> 
> b. In all directories containing tests for CSS WG specs
> 
> c. Nowhere (and almost certainly break the CSS WG's tooling)
> 
> 
> And the CSS WG's preference is 1: b, 2: b, 3: a, 4: a/b (they're
> identical given previous answers).
> 
> I believe the preference of the WPT admins is 1: b, 2: a, 3: a, 4: c
> (this is essentially "remove all special-casing for CSS testsuites").

And given we probably want to garner responses without a million emails:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1KlaK6h0lq4KcoC4_uNMzjXSIqBdmS5lwkbxykNKn9zM/edit

(I realise sending an extra email for this is causing an extra million
emails, sorry!)

/g
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2017 23:51:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:08 UTC