On Apr/6/2011 6:33 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Garrett Smithdhtmlkitc...@gmail.com 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
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com 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
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
[...]
I think all of the substantive comments to date only affect the proposed
Approval page. I'll notify the list
On Apr/6/2011 11:22 AM, ext Garrett Smith wrote:
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
[...]
I think all of the substantive comments to date only affect
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/6/2011 11:22 AM, ext Garrett Smith wrote:
On 4/6/11, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
On Apr/3/2011 6:31 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstowart.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
[...]
I
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com 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
On 4/4/11, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/4/11, James Graham jgra...@opera.com 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
/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:Re: RfC: WebApps Testing
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com 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
On 3/31/11, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com 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.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com 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
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
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
