On 2014-09-08, 6:47 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 5:49 PM, James Graham <ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:
Well, it would also make sense to have interop for editing of course :)
Not a single major browser has significant resources invested in
working on their editing code. Until that changes, nothing much is
going to happen.
I would certainly be in favour of someone pushing those tests through
review so that they can land in web-platform-tests, but historically we
haven't been that successful in getting review for large submissions
where no one is actively working on the code (e.g. [1] which has a lot
of tests, mostly written by me, for document loading). I don't really
know how to fix that other than say "it's OK to land stuff no one has
looked at because we can probably sort it out post-hoc", which has some
appeal, but also substantial downsides if no one is making even basic
checks for correct usage of the server or for patterns that are known to
result in unstable tests.
I think unreviewed tests should still be run by browsers' automated
testing framework (obviously unless they take too long, are
unreliable, etc.). They just shouldn't be counted toward any claims
of conformance. Even if the expected values are entirely silly, which
they probably aren't, they'll still help regression testing. There's
already an external set of tests that Mozilla runs (browserscope)
which I think is wrong in a number of its expected results, but it's
still been useful for catching regressions in my experience.
Yeah, I second this. There is a lot of value in having tests that
detect the changes in Gecko's behavior.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
