Remove the LDP Basic tests from suite

[kjetilk]

As we do not have a strict LDP interpretation in Solid, this is removes the LDP test suite from the test suite itself. Those who use an LDP server below Solid are encouraged to run the LDP test suite as part of their environment.

We need to confirm the Docker container runs with this, thus the Work in progress tag in the subject.

[michielbdejong]

I think we should keep it.

The current spec requires compliance with LDP BasicContainer.

The draft new spec even requires compliance with all of LDP.

You mentioned solid/specification#69 but I think that is at a higher layer. Solid builds on LDP in the same way LDP builds on HTTP, it's layering, right?

Can you point to evidence that the work-in-progress version of the next spec is moving away from (some of) the requirements that the LDP Basic tests are testing for?

You say we will keep ldp:contains but not some of the other things. Out of the 90 LDP Basic tests we have now, which ones do you think test things that Solid does not require from a pod?

[kjetilk]

This is a very long discussion, that has been going on for many months.

The spec draft was a quick thing put together by Ruben and myself, and previously, even though the old documentation says that it is an LDP application, NSS is just 20% compliant with the test suite. NSS also doesn't respect the interaction models, etc. In reality, LDP hasn't ever been crucial to Solid.

It might well be that a future Solid spec compliant implementation will pass 100% of the Solid test suite, but we will need to document all of Solid in tests anyway, and the 90 tests there will not change this. Meanwhile, I would be concerned that an implementor would come along and look at LDP and think they have to be Solid compliant, which is a mouthful. It is likely easier to write a compliant Solid implementation from scratch, than an LDP implementation from scratch.

I agree that there is little in terms of text, but it is being worked on. If you wish, we can wait to merge this until the new spec comes to the level where it is clear that the LDP legacy is too much to bear.

[csarven]

#94 (comment) summarises the rationale for this PR to go through. Merge whenever it makes sense.

[csarven]

Should Websockets-pub-sub be removed until it is actually worked out? Or is there intended to be a particular subset covered?

[kjetilk]

I think it is OK to have there as there is something to test, the actual details are worked out as we go, which is true for everything right now, we're in flux. If we do reach a point where tests are not aligned with the state-of-the-art on specification, then we can consider removing it.