[imps] Missing tree-construction tests (after Twintsam code-coverage analysis)
t.broyer at gmail.com
Wed Mar 12 08:49:37 PDT 2008
Still replying to myself...
> > If someone wants (and have time) to scan through all the tests to see
> > if they're still OK wrt the current draft; I suggest reorganizing
> > tests (e.g. grouped by insertion mode) and moving them into
> > http://html5.googlecode.com at the same time.
> I've start such a work, but re-creating all the tests from scratch.
> Read the commit log for explanations (it should probably be moved into
> a README):
> I've no yet used those new files with Twintsam or html5lib, I just ran
> each individual test through html5lib's parse.py (with -e and --tree
> options) to check the output against my understanding of the spec.
I ran the tests through html5lib. There are a few things I changed in
the test-file format which required some changes to html5lib:
- the DOCTYPEs are serialized with their PUBLIC and SYSTEM
identifiers if they are present (and non-empty, because html5lib
doesn't tell the difference). I might add a "#compatibility-mode"
sectio with values "quirks", "no quirks" and "limited quirks" (and
move the tests into a compatibility-mode.dat file)
- the comments are serialized without extra spaces (the current test
format expects "<!-- comment -->" if the comment data is "comment", my
new tests expect "<!--comment-->")
To make it easier to run the tests in html5lib, I'm thinking about
putting a .patch file into html5lib's SVN repository: apply the patch
and run tests.
What do you think?
Some of the tests revealed wrong after analyzing why html5lib didn't
pass them (cut/paste is really a bad practice ;-) ).
More information about the Implementors