Ask for web-platform-tests in CONTRIBUTING.md #1767
Conversation
This uses the same wording as in w3c/fxtf-drafts#215
Per WG discussion #1755 (comment)
|
Someone else than me ( @astearns or @atanassov ?) should review this, but looks good to me. |
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| [file an issue](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/issues/new) to follow up later. Add the | ||
| `type:untestable` or `type:missing-coverage` label as appropriate. | ||
|
|
||
| The pre-CR specifications are currently: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about "The pre-CR specifications with this testing requirement are currently:"
|
|
||
| For normative changes for any specification in | ||
| [CR or later](https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work) as well as the pre-CR specifications listed | ||
| below, a corresponding [web-platform-tests](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests) PR must be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've been asking for a policy like this, so obvious this makes me happy, but I think it's important that there's some leeway here. The "testing is not practical" case will probably come up at least occasionally at CR or later, and if everyone agrees, then this "must" ought not get in the way of progress. I think that if this is downgraded to a "should", then editor's can use their best judgement about when to file issues instead of requiring tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The way I'm reading it, the 'must' is to have a wpt PR or an explanation/issue for followup. It's still at the editor's discretion, but they must do one or the other.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps I'm reading this too much like a format spec, but I'm not able to parse it that way, "a corresponding PR must be provided" sounds quite final. Of course, it's only with RFC 2119 goggles that changing it to "should" helps. Interested to hear how others read this, and don't mind it if other have a more lenient interpretation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think if the intent is the way @astearns is reading it, then it needs to be reworded to be more clear about the either-or.
|
|
||
| For normative changes for any specification in | ||
| [CR or later](https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work) as well as the pre-CR specifications listed | ||
| below, a corresponding [web-platform-tests](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests) PR must be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think if the intent is the way @astearns is reading it, then it needs to be reworded to be more clear about the either-or.
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| For normative changes for any specification in | ||
| [CR or later](https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work) as well as the pre-CR specifications listed | ||
| below, a corresponding [web-platform-tests](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests) PR must be | ||
| provided; for other specifications it is highly appreciated. Typically, both PRs will be merged at |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
“for other specifications it is highly appreciated” I would probably downgrade this a bit to maybe s/highly/often/. I would not have appreciated people submitting tests to CSS Grid in the earlier exploratory stages of the spec: that just means more work for for us to go through the for-sure outdated and possibly entirely useless tests later on--and discourages submissions without tests even in cases where they wouldn't actually be helpful.
(Although, in general, I prefer people filing issues to PRs for normative spec changes anyway.)
| The pre-CR specifications with this testing requirement are currently: | ||
|
|
||
| * cssom | ||
| * cssom-view |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
css-overflow-3 and css-position-3 will probably fall under this list as well, although I haven't looked at them lately, so fine to leave out for now.
|
I've tweaked the wording, PTAL. |
(This is two commits for easier reviewing; should be squashed when merging.)
Closes #1755.