New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ask for web-platform-tests in CONTRIBUTING.md #1131

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 26, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@foolip
Member

foolip commented Apr 24, 2017

The wording is adapted from the WHATWG contributor guidelines:
https://github.com/whatwg/meta/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

This is sometimes already happening:
web-platform-tests/wpt#3449
web-platform-tests/wpt#5628

Drive-by: whitespace

@foolip

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@foolip

foolip Apr 24, 2017

Member

Discussed briedly with @jakearchibald before sending, this is a starting point for discussion, as what worked for HTML might not work verbatim for Service Workers. Especially interested in feedback from @jungkees.

Member

foolip commented Apr 24, 2017

Discussed briedly with @jakearchibald before sending, this is a starting point for discussion, as what worked for HTML might not work verbatim for Service Workers. Especially interested in feedback from @jungkees.

@jungkees

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jungkees

jungkees Apr 25, 2017

Collaborator

Basically, I agree to do this. Service workers folks already agreed on the importance of the tests during the f2f. I think we can allow some wiggle room where providing tests is not practical as the PR suggests. Any other comments?

Collaborator

jungkees commented Apr 25, 2017

Basically, I agree to do this. Service workers folks already agreed on the importance of the tests during the f2f. I think we can allow some wiggle room where providing tests is not practical as the PR suggests. Any other comments?

@foolip

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@foolip

foolip Apr 25, 2017

Member

That's great, thanks @jungkees! Like in whatwg/html#1849, you of course need not assume that it's going to work out perfectly, and you can change the "rules" as needed to work well for Service Workers.

Member

foolip commented Apr 25, 2017

That's great, thanks @jungkees! Like in whatwg/html#1849, you of course need not assume that it's going to work out perfectly, and you can change the "rules" as needed to work well for Service Workers.

@jungkees

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jungkees

jungkees Apr 26, 2017

Collaborator

@foolip, it seems like we also need whatwg/meta@198c127?

Collaborator

jungkees commented Apr 26, 2017

@foolip, it seems like we also need whatwg/meta@198c127?

Ask for web-platform-tests in CONTRIBUTING.md
The wording is adapted from the WHATWG contributor guidelines:
https://github.com/whatwg/meta/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

This is sometimes already happening:
web-platform-tests/wpt#3449
web-platform-tests/wpt#5628

Drive-by: whitespace
@foolip

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@foolip

foolip Apr 26, 2017

Member

Good idea. I tried to integrate that while keeping it to a single paragraph, PTAL.

(I think that if many specs do this, it might be best to extract out "process" to e.g. a page on web-platform-tests.org, but I'm not in a hurry to generalize.)

Member

foolip commented Apr 26, 2017

Good idea. I tried to integrate that while keeping it to a single paragraph, PTAL.

(I think that if many specs do this, it might be best to extract out "process" to e.g. a page on web-platform-tests.org, but I'm not in a hurry to generalize.)

@jungkees jungkees merged commit 010ff31 into w3c:master Apr 26, 2017

1 check passed

ipr PR deemed acceptable.
Details
@jungkees

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jungkees

jungkees Apr 26, 2017

Collaborator

LGTM. Merged. Thanks. Curious how the other specs will do for it.

Collaborator

jungkees commented Apr 26, 2017

LGTM. Merged. Thanks. Curious how the other specs will do for it.

@foolip foolip deleted the foolip:appreciate-tests branch Apr 26, 2017

@foolip

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@foolip

foolip Apr 26, 2017

Member

I'm trying to figure out which specs are most ready to adopt this working mode, if you know of others where you think it'd make sense, please let me know!

Member

foolip commented Apr 26, 2017

I'm trying to figure out which specs are most ready to adopt this working mode, if you know of others where you think it'd make sense, please let me know!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment