Ask for web-platform-tests in CONTRIBUTING.md#1131
Conversation
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
@foolip, it seems like we also need whatwg/meta@198c127? |
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
force-pushed
the
appreciate-tests
branch
from
f95cd2b to
ef66181
Compare
|
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.) |
|
LGTM. Merged. Thanks. Curious how the other specs will do for it. |
|
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! |
2 participants
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