Except, seemingly, based on the past month and a half, we're up to 13 labelled with "Needs Testcase (WPT)"…
-
-
Replying to @gsnedders @gregwhitworth and
…and we've only had WPT tests land alongside spec changes for CSS UI. We still aren't actually getting tests for things that change.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gsnedders @tabatkins and
Sure, I'll make the tests for Elika's flex changes once I'm done reviewing them. We NEED QA owners, far too many people want to edit specs
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gregwhitworth @gsnedders and
and far too few care about tests until it's time for REC at which point implementations have shipped
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gregwhitworth @gsnedders and
Exactly, that is why you make it a requirement for PRs. You want to get that change landed? You better figure out a testing story!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @annevk @gregwhitworth and
Yeah, it's really depressing to see editors say "my priority is my edit backlog". Those edits are pointless without tests/bugs.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Lol ok, tell that to the implementors who want the spec to reflect reality/consensus sometime this year.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tabatkins @annevk and
Let's ask the implementers on this thread. I know Chrome doesn't want fast edits with no tests or bugs. Firefox? Edge?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @domenic @tabatkins and
It's a tough call, because in many cases for the CSSWG what you are calling "fast edits" means "finally make the spec web-compatible"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @really_bz @bz_moz and
Does not seem that tough once you realize how it became web-incompatible (hint: no tests).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I think it's a bit more complicated than that, especially in cases when UAs unilaterally did something, spec be damned...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.