On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:17 AM, James Graham <ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04/11/15 11:12, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >> Well sure, I agree that taking mochitests as the input to a test-writing >>> effort is a good idea. I see this as being very different to blindly >>> shimming mochitests into the wpt harness. Having said that, however, I >>> don't think people have complained a lot about lack of test coverage from >>> wpt except in the areas that it doesn't cover at all i.e. dynamic changes >>> to layout, or other human interaction. >>> >> >> >> To pick a couple of areas I work on: for CSSOM-Views for example there is >> practically no coverage at all. The media tests are better but still very >> limited compared to what we test in mochitests. >> > > It would be great to have a record of some areas where we know that > web-platform-tests has missing coverage; we occasionally get people looking > for areas where they can make useful test contributions and asking what's > required. Can you file some issues on GitHub, possibly pointing to the > relevant mochitests that we could draw from? Sure. https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/issues/2304 The media tests are better than I thought --- I found more. They don't test the variety of problematic media files that our mochitests do, but maybe that's not in scope? Should we be worried that regressions in the media stack seldom trigger W test failures on mozilla-inbound but often trigger mochitest failures? Rob -- lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr rdn rdsme,anea lurpr edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf toD selthor stor edna siewaoeodm or v sstvr esBa kbvted,t rdsme,aoreseoouoto o l euetiuruewFa kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr rdm or rnea lurpr .a war hsrer holsa rodvted,t nenh hneireseoouot.tniesiewaoeivatewt sstvr esn _______________________________________________ dev-servo mailing list dev-servo@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo
