On 2014-09-09, 8:44 AM, James Graham wrote:
On 08/09/14 19:42, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
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.
Yes, I agree too. One option I had considered was making a suite
"web-platform-tests-mozilla" for things that we can't push upstream e.g.
because the APIs aren't (yet) undergoing meaningful standardisation.
Putting the editing tests into this bucket might make some sense.
That sounds good to me. As long as we recognize and support this use
case, I'd be happy to leave the exact solution to you. :-)
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
