Thanks for the feedback!
Yes, I agree early and thorough review is needed and my expectation
was/is that those vested in a spec and its test suite would actively
participate in the creation and review of tests, regardless of whether
that function was documented or not. I will add some related
On 04/21/2011 01:10 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
First, thanks to Art for pulling all this content together. We're looking
forward to a more structured process for testing as various specifications
in the WebApps increase in maturity.
I have a couple of small comments related to the issues Aryeh ra
First, thanks to Art for pulling all this content together. We're looking
forward to a more structured process for testing as various specifications
in the WebApps increase in maturity.
I have a couple of small comments related to the issues Aryeh raised.
Apologies for the lateness of these commen
I agree the need for clear test suite status is implied and should be
explicit. I've added a new requirement for this to [1]. As to how this
requirement is addressed, perhaps we should adopt/re-use some existing
good practice; otherwise perhaps we can use a Status/Readme file in each
.../tests/
On 4/19/11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Apr/18/2011 12:29 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smith
>> wrote:
>>> The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: "Within each test one
>>> may have a number of asserts."
>>>
>>> Awkward wording to explicitly menti
On Apr/18/2011 12:29 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: "Within each test one
may have a number of asserts."
Awkward wording to explicitly mention that such bad practice is allowed.
I'll reiterate
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> A test with 0 assertions could be used to test exceptions but only if
> the testing framework provides for "@throws" annotation (my
> TestRunner.js does).
testharness.js has an assert_throws() function that can be used in
cases where an exce
On 4/18/11, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smith
> wrote:
>> The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: "Within each test one
>> may have a number of asserts."
>>
>> Awkward wording to explicitly mention that such bad practice is allowed.
>
> I'll reiterate t
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> The superfluous, badly worded maladvice remains: "Within each test one
> may have a number of asserts."
>
> Awkward wording to explicitly mention that such bad practice is allowed.
I'll reiterate that I think multiple asserts per test are us
On 4/13/11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> I have updated WebApps' testing process documents to reflect comments
> submitted to the initial draft process [1]. As such, this is a Call for
> Consensus to agree to the testing process as described in:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing
> http://
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> I have updated WebApps' testing process documents to reflect comments
> submitted to the initial draft process [1]. As such, this is a Call for
> Consensus to agree to the testing process as described in:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/
I have updated WebApps' testing process documents to reflect comments
submitted to the initial draft process [1]. As such, this is a Call for
Consensus to agree to the testing process as described in:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Submission
htt
12 matches
Mail list logo
