On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:12:04 +0200, Carmelo Montanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I am getting ready to submit a number of tests and wanted to get your
feedback on format. We already agreed
on a template a few weeks back. This follows on that format. Just
wanted to get your view before I go forward.
See attached files.
Hi Carmelo,
I don't quite see how the structure of your format is meant to evolve -
the tests are not very complex but there is still too much utility code
that should be in a framework inside the scripts itself, and it all relies
too much on global variables and global functions in ad-hoc
"underscore-namespaces" like w3c_ and NIST_. Perhaps you have some
documentation on the agreed format?
Also a bit odd that you won't get correct pass/fail output in UAs without
advanced CSS support - generated content, even. That alone makes the test
suite useless for comparing compliance to older browsers or your past
versions.
Have you considered simply using the YUI-test framework? I think it is
pretty well structured and clean. I admit I have not written any serious
number of tests with it but I work on analysing those that come with YUI
pretty often and it always strikes me as better than other frameworks I
know - stuff I maintain or have written.
Format 1 includes the files:
NIST_wheel_001.html
NIST_wheel_002.html
NIST_functions.js
Format 2 includes:
NIST_wheel_format2_001.html
NIST_wheel_002_format2.html
NIST_Functions_format2.js
Thanks,
Carmelo Montanez
--
Hallvord R. M. Steen
Core QA JavaScript tester, Opera Software
http://www.opera.com/
Opera - simply the best Internet experience
