| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision |
| test:css2.1:review-checklist [2012/06/16 10:12] – [Nitpicky] fantasai | test:css2.1:review-checklist [2012/08/29 16:48] – [Metadata] rhauck |
|---|
| Getting these correct lets us automatically index and manipulate the tests. | Getting these correct lets us automatically index and manipulate the tests. |
| |
| * [ ] Title is //unique// and //descriptive// but not wordy. (It should make sense in the test suite's [[http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/html4/by-section.htm|table of contents]].) | * [ ] Title is //unique// and //descriptive// but not wordy. (It should make sense in the test suite's [[http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html|table of contents]].) |
| * [ ] Title starts with ''CSS Test: ''. | * [ ] Title starts with ''CSS Test: ''. |
| * [ ] One or more <link> elements [[test:format#credits|credit the author(s)]]. | * [ ] One or more <link> elements [[test:format#credits|credit the author(s)]]. |
| * [ ] Any necessary [[test:format#requirement-flags|requirement flags]] are given. | * [ ] Any necessary [[test:format#requirement-flags|requirement flags]] are given. |
| * [ ] The [[test:format#test-assertions|test assertion]] is a **complete**, **detailed** statement expressing **specifically** what the test is attempting to prove (and is therefore not a duplicate of any other assertion in the test suite). | * [ ] The [[test:format#test-assertions|test assertion]] is a **complete**, **detailed** statement expressing **specifically** what the test is attempting to prove (and is therefore not a duplicate of any other assertion in the test suite). |
| |
| ===== Test Contents ===== | ===== Test Contents ===== |
| |
| * [ ] The test will not pass inadvertently.. | * [ ] The test will not pass inadvertently.. |
| * [ ] The test contains no extraneous content. | * [ ] The test contains no extraneous content. |
| * [ ] The test instructions are accurate, precise, simple, and self-explanatory. (Your mother/husband/roommate/brother/bus driver should be able to say whether the test passed or failed within a few seconds, and not need to spend several minutes thinking or asking questions.) | * [ ] That self-describing test instructions are accurate, precise, simple, and self-explanatory. Your mother/husband/roommate/brother/bus driver should be able to say whether the test passed or failed within a few seconds, and not need to spend several minutes thinking or asking questions. |
| | * [ ] That the reference for a reftest is accurate and will render pixel-perfect identically to the test on all platforms. |
| | * [ ] That the reference for a reftest uses a different technique that won't fail in the same way as the test. |
| * [ ] The test is as cross-platform as reasonably possible, working across different devices, screen resolutions, paper sizes, etc. If there are limitations (e.g. the test will only work on 96dpi devices, or screens wider than 200 pixels), these are documented in the instructions. | * [ ] The test is as cross-platform as reasonably possible, working across different devices, screen resolutions, paper sizes, etc. If there are limitations (e.g. the test will only work on 96dpi devices, or screens wider than 200 pixels), these are documented in the instructions. |
| * [ ] The spec backs up the expected behavior in the test. (I've run into a number of tests that make assumptions I could've sworn were in the spec, but aren't there when I go and check. Since this often means the spec forgot to handle something, you should send a message to www-style about it.) | * [ ] The spec backs up the expected behavior in the test. (I've run into a number of tests that make assumptions I could've sworn were in the spec, but aren't there when I go and check. Since this often means the spec forgot to handle something, you should send a message to www-style about it.) |
