We agree that there are errors in these tests (however I did not see that one mentioned in your list of changes, which is a good reason to make much smaller, more focused issues rather than massive pull requests)
But your changes have done a lot more than just this. You've removed tests claiming that they're duplicates without demonstrating that they're duplicates (eg, claiming that "4 digits" and "greater than 999" are the same thing, with the same code to step through, when they are in fact not). But even if you do demonstrate that the code is the same, for things like that I think it's a good idea to keep those tests in place for now, because they're not actually the same thing. Removing tests, changing the expected number of cues (sometimes correct, other times not so much), removing the comments regarding the syntax rules (which are essentially a guide through the parser code) and replacing them with the "relevant" section from the parser spec... Things like this, I don't agree with. There are a huge number of changed files in your pull requests, I haven't been over all of them, but a few of these things have stood out. It will be a lot simpler if we can avoid these massive patches (I'm guilty of this too) so that it's easier for other people to provide an input on exactly what is correct and what isn't. But nevermind the "big patch" issue for now, the thing is that we all agree that tests for the rules outlined in the "parsing" section are needed. The issue is that some of us believe these tests are different from the other tests (in that they will require a different FileParser implementation). They can still use the same data files, and even sit in the same folder. But some code changes are really necessary to make them test the things you want them to test. ________________________________________ From: dev-media-bounces+caitlin.potter=senecacollege...@lists.mozilla.org [dev-media-bounces+caitlin.potter=senecacollege...@lists.mozilla.org] on behalf of Kyle Barnhart [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:21 PM To: Ralph Giles Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: WebVTT Parser Standards Compliance There are tests for every valid and invalid input we could think of. Let me show an example of the changes I've made. 00:01.780 --> 00:02.300 That is a timing statement for a cue. The whitespace between the timestamp and the arrow is required by the syntax rules but not required by the parsing rules. So for tests where the whitespace is missing, I've changed the expected number of cues from 0 to 1. 00:02.0005 The milliseconds are only allowed to have 3 digits. In the current tests change it 00:02.005. This is not allowed by either syntax or parsing rules, and by parsing rules the cue should be discarded. So I changed expected cues from 1 to 0. These are only two of the many changes that had to be made to make the tests correct according to the parsing rules. The other big change I made is to reference the parsing rules being tested in the comments instead of the syntax rules, since the syntax rules don't apply to a parser and the parsing rules do. Otherwise I've made no changes to the intent of any test, and I have added many missing tests, and removed duplicate test. I have not removed any debug error checks and have added many missing ones. In all the modified tests are more thorough and make sure the parser is correctly outputs cues that are standards compliant. What Caitlin is now arguing is that the parsing library should have two settings, one outputs non-standard cues, and one outputs standard cues, and there is a set of tests for each. However I can see no possible reason ever to output non-standard cues. In fact is it bad, dangerous, and a whole lot of unnecessary work. The purpose of a standard is to make sure WebVTT behaves the same in all settings. Outputting non-compliant cues directly violates the standard. Allowing it can only serve to make it more difficult to work with WebVTT, and developers will not know how their file will behave from one application to the next. Therefore it is far less work and far better to have one set of standard compliant tests, and fix the parser to those standards. And it is better to do it now, then to go back and re-engineer the thing later. Thanks, Kyle Barnhart On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Ralph Giles <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13-02-04 5:20 PM, Caitlin Potter wrote: > > > The issue here is that Kyle insists on rewriting unit tests that are > concerned with the "syntax specification", rather than adding new tests > that are concerned with the "parser specification". > > Like Chris, I'm a confused what the contended issue is. To be clear, are > we looking at the version of the webvtt spec at > https://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/ ? > > This has several sections which seem relevant: > > * 3.1 "Syntax" described the WebVTT text format and includes a few > parser descriptions, such as the one for timestamps. > > * 3.2 "Parsing" describes the top-level parsing algorithm for WebVTT > text files. > > * 3.3 "Cue text parsing" describes a parsing algorithm for the contents > of each cue, building a particular dom-ish data structure. > > Is one of these sections the "syntax specification" and another the > "parser specification"? If so, where do they disagree? Can you give a > specific example where one is more permissive or restrictive than another? > > The point of having a specific parser algorithm documented in the spec > is to achieve uniform implementation. If everyone implements the > algorithm (or its equivalent) the handling of edge cases will be more > consistent than if everyone implements a parser from scratch based on > some incomplete syntax description. So we should be implementing the > parser the spec describes. If the spec is internally inconsistent we > should file spec bugs and get the text fixed. > > Nevertheless, the current code doesn't pass--or even run to completion > on--a number of the current tests, so it's difficult to tell what works > and what doesn't. I think fixing that should be the highest priority for > those working on the parser. Without tests we don't know where we stand, or > > Kyle, Caitlin's suggestion that you provide a separate set of parser > tests seems reasonable to me if she wants the current set for code > coverage or additional features. The test sets can always be merged > later if there's consensus that's appropriate. In the meantime you won't > get in each other's way. > > - Ralph > _______________________________________________ > dev-media mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media > _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
