On Apr/6/2011 6:33 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
| Within each test one may have a number of asserts.
I don't agree.
SRP applies to functions and also unit tests. Limiting test functions
to one assertion keeps them simple and can also indicat
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> | Within each test one may have a number of asserts.
>
> I don't agree.
>
> SRP applies to functions and also unit tests. Limiting test functions
> to one assertion keeps them simple and can also indicate too much
> complexity in the method be
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Apr/6/2011 11:22 AM, ext Garrett Smith wrote:
>> On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>> On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I think all of the substantive comments to date o
On Apr/6/2011 11:22 AM, ext Garrett Smith wrote:
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
[...]
I think all of the substantive comments to date only affect the proposed
Approval page. I'll notify the
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstow
>> wrote:
[...]
> I think all of the substantive comments to date only affect the proposed
> Approval page. I'll notify the list after I've reworked that document to
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
I'm not sure we need to explicitly designate test suite maintainers.
I'd be okay with not having specific maintainers, but then we need to
figure out some good process for what to do if someone
On 4/4/11, Garrett Smith wrote:
> On 4/4/11, James Graham wrote:
>> (setting followup to public-testinfra)
>>
>> On 04/04/2011 01:45 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I'd rather see the `format_value` function broken up. It makes
>>> non-standard expectations of host objects (`val`) and that there
On 4/4/11, James Graham wrote:
> (setting followup to public-testinfra)
>
> On 04/04/2011 01:45 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>> I'd rather see the `format_value` function broken up. It makes
>> non-standard expectations of host objects (`val`) and that there is a
>> global `Node` object. Which stand
(setting followup to public-testinfra)
On 04/04/2011 01:45 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
I'd rather see the `format_value` function broken up. It makes
non-standard expectations of host objects (`val`) and that there is a
global `Node` object. Which standard requires that?
Well Web DOM Core does.
t:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describecomponents.cgi?product=Testing
James Graham (author of testharness.js) is default assignee of this
component.
-Art Barstow
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1086.html
Original Message
Subject:
On Apr/3/2011 7:45 PM, ext Garrett Smith wrote:
On 3/31/11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
A couple of questions too ...
1. What is the level of uptake of testharness.js within the HTML WG
What is the HTML WG using a javascript test harness for?
I think you should ask this question on the HTML WG's
On 3/31/11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> During the 2011 TPAC meeting, I agreed to an action (action-611) to work
> with Chaals and WebApps' Team Contacts to define the group's testing
> processes.
>
> To that end, I created the following documents:
>
> 1. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wik
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> I'm not sure we need to explicitly designate test suite maintainers.
I'd be okay with not having specific maintainers, but then we need to
figure out some good process for what to do if someone finds a test
bug. With a spec, you can file a
Thanks for the comments Aryeh.
So rather than having a contribution reviewed and approved when the
contributor wants to start a CfC to Review+Approved (R&A) their
contribution, the idea is to allow any number of edits and contributions
to a test suite until such time the group thinks the test
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 3. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Approval - how to start a test case
> review, approval process, how to update an approved test case
It looks like every submitted test suite must undergo a CfC, and so
must every update. I'll first sa
On Mar/31/2011 10:04 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
On Mar 31, 2011, at 14:04 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
1. What is the level of uptake of testharness.js within the HTML WG and other WGs? If any of these
groups provide "usage" information, what are the URIs? Do any WGs make testharness.js's
use Mand
On Mar 31, 2011, at 14:04 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 1. What is the level of uptake of testharness.js within the HTML WG and other
> WGs? If any of these groups provide "usage" information, what are the URIs?
> Do any WGs make testharness.js's use Mandatory? Currently, its usage in the
> above do
Hi All,
During the 2011 TPAC meeting, I agreed to an action (action-611) to work
with Chaals and WebApps' Team Contacts to define the group's testing
processes.
To that end, I created the following documents:
1. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Testing - some high level goals,
and links
18 matches
Mail list logo
