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. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
