Aryeh Gregor wrote: > 1) Decide on guidelines for whether a test is internal or reusable. > As a starting point, I suggest that all tests that are regular > webpages that don't use any Mozilla-specific features should be > candidates for reuse. Examples of internal tests would be tests > written in XUL and unit tests. In particular, I think we should > write > tests for reuse if they cover anything that other browsers implement > or might implement, even if there's currently no standard for it. > Other browsers should still be able to run these tests, even if they > might decide not to follow them. Also, tests that currently use > prefixed web-exposed properties should still be made reusable, since > the properties should eventually be unprefixed.
Which other browser makers are going to follow these guidelines, so that we benefit from them? Generally, this is a great idea if it makes it faster and easier to improve Firefox. But, like Asa, I also interpreted this proposal along the lines of "Spend resources, and slow down Firefox development, to help other browsers." That seems totally in line with our values, but doesn't seem great as far as competitiveness is concerned. Also, are you saying "if you are going to write a mochitest, then try to write a reusable test" or "if you are going to write a test, write a reusable test?" The reason I ask is that we're supposed to write xpcshell tests in preference to mochitests when possible, and I'd hate the preference to change to be in favor of mochitests, because xpcshell tests are much more convenient (and faster) to write and run. Thanks, Brian _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
