RFC #163: Add web_feature metadata file to web-platform-tests

[jcscottiii]

Replacement of #157 that uses the feedback from the last WPT meeting.

Rendered

[Ms2ger]

This seems reasonable

[Ms2ger]

Presumably there's also a step where this data is integrated in wpt.fyi

[jcscottiii]

This will come as a separate RFC. Now that this RFC is moving to separate things (as opposed to #157), there might be a different way to integrate this into wpt.fyi instead of just modifying the current metadata ingestion path.

[foolip]

https://github.com/web-platform-dx/web-features has been renamed to match the name of the NPM package, so I suggest renaming this to web_features or features.

[jcscottiii]

Thanks for pointing that out @foolip ! I have renamed things.

[foolip]

@jcscottiii did you forget to push changes? There's a lot of "feature-set" in the text still.

[jcscottiii]

@foolip that's quite embarrassing of me 😅. Thanks for catching that.

I fixed that.

[jcscottiii]

@jgraham I added the lint suggestion that you mentioned during the https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt-notes/blob/master/minutes/2023-09-05.md

[foolip]

Thanks @jcscottiii!

[foolip]

@Ms2ger are you OK with the wpt.fyi integration being out of scope? You have a "requested changes" review if you'd like to give it another spin :)

[Ms2ger]

Not blocking

[jgraham]

So generally this seems OK, but I'd at least like to understand the requirements that drove the inheritance design.

Longer term, I'm worried about the duplication between this and wpt-metadata. wpt.fyi seems like the obvious UI to add feature metadata, even though (like interop labels) they don't correspond to test results. Indeed the lowest-risk way of prototyping this work and exploring requirements would be just adding labels to tests like feature-subgrid.

[foolip]

@jcscottiii now that the file can list multiple features, can you rename it from WEB_FEATURE.yml to plural WEB_FEATURES.yml? This aligns with the package name web-features too :)

[jcscottiii]

@foolip Thanks for the suggestion. Done!

[foolip]

Thanks @jcscottiii! I've looked this over once more. There are lots of ways that one could do the "exclude features from parent directories" part, and this approach seems pragmatic to me. (You could also imagine a system of includes/excludes, but then you need to both exclude tests from a parent feature and include them into a child feature, which isn't a big deal, but also not an improvement IMHO.)

[jcscottiii]

@jgraham any thoughts on the latest version

[jgraham]

I think this looks good enough to be worth prototyping.

[foolip]

A first WEB_FEATURES.yml file was added in web-platform-tests/wpt#42709. Thanks @jcscottiii for driving this RFC!