- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:25:33 -0400
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Cc: "public-html-testsuite@w3.org" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:52 AM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote: > * Getting the results out of the test into our systems. In theory this is > solved for testharness.js tests by including a second <script>; > testharnessreport.js that is blank on the W3C site and which vendors can use > to convert the testharness.js results to whatever is needed > result-collection system they use. However not all tests have consistently > included this extra script. I never got the point of that. Why don't reusers just hack testharness.js itself? Or if we want it to be a separate file for convenience, why doesn't testharness.js add the <script> to include that file automatically? > The second problem needs a bit of thought. Possibly the testsuite > could have a build step and servers could be variables in the original > files. That has some disadvantages though since there is non-negligible > overhead to making everyone build the testsuite before they can run it. If we make sure that the set of hosts is fixed and their roles are well-documented, would it be unreasonable to ask implementers to just edit the host file on their test machine to point the ___domain to someplace they control? That seems like it would be a lot simpler than any of the alternatives I can think of.
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 22:26:20 UTC