Mirrors/servo
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/servo/servo.git synced 2025-06-25 01:24:37 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity
servo/tests/wpt/web-platform-tests/css/css-regions-1/test-plan/index.html

377 lines
16 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>CSS Regions testing strategy</title>
<meta http-equiv='Content-Type' content='text/html;charset=utf-8'/>
<!--
=== NOTA BENE ===
For the three scripts below, if your spec resides on dev.w3 you can check them
out in the same tree and use relative links so that they'll work offline,
-->
<script src='http://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common' class='remove' async></script>
<script class='remove'>
var respecConfig = {
specStatus: "unofficial",
shortName: "css3-regions-test-strategy",
editors: [
{
name: "Alan Stearns", mailto: "stearns@adobe.com",
company: "Adobe Systems, Inc.", companyURL: "http://www.adobe.com/"
},
{
name: "Mihai Balan", mailto: "mibalan@adobe.com",
company: "Adobe Systems, Inc.", companyURL: "http://www.adobe.com/"
},
],
testSuiteURI: "http://test.csswg.org/suites/css3-regions/nightly-unstable/",
};
</script>
<style>
a.bibref,
#references dt {
text-transform: uppercase;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<section id='abstract'>
<p>
This document is intended to be used as a guideline for the testing
activities related to the CSS Regions spec [[!css3-regions]]. Its main
goal is to provide an overview of the general testing areas, possible
caveats and testing aspects not immediately apparent from the spec.
Also, it provides a means of tracking the progress of the CSS Regions
spec testing.
</p>
<p>
This document is not meant to replace the spec in determining the
normative and non-normative assertions to be tested, but rather
complement it.
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>
As CSS moved away from the monolithic development of CSS 2.1 to the
modular development of CSS 3, the number of proposed new features and
the complexity of the layout landscape have increased dramatically.
While this directly translates to increased flexibility and agility in
adopting and implementing new CSS features, it also increases the
complexity of testing CSS features and the need for coordinating the
testing efforts. Also, the need for testing coordination increases as
crowd-sourcing efforts like
<a href="http://testthewebforward.org/" target="_blank">Test the Web
Forward</a> present people less familiar with the processes and policies
of the W3C with the opportunity to contribute new tests.
</p>
<p>
Except when defining new behaviors or redefining old behaviors, the
implicit assumption for new CSS modules is that they play nicely with
other modules or properties defined in CSS&nbsp;2.1 [[CSS21]]. As CSS
Regions is a spec that touches many aspects of layout, styling and CSSOM,
it's not unreasonable to want to test the spec against these implicit
assumptions, too.
</p>
<p>
This testing strategy document is meant to complement the CSS Regions
spec and the existing test suite by providing an overview of the testing
areas (especially the less apparent ones) and tracking the progress of
the testing activities against these test areas.
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h2>Goals</h2>
<p>
To ensure a comprehensive test suite with useful, high quality tests, a
number of goals are proposed. They range from process goals (how to
conduct testing) to implementation goals (how to write good tests).
</p>
<section>
<h3>Enabling easy test contribution</h3>
<p>
An important vector in successfully testing CSS Regions is to
enable easy test contributions, both from W3C partners and from
non-W3C members that wish to contribute. This is achieved by clearly
marking and explaining the areas that need testing, linked to existing
tests and general testing progress.
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h3>Providing guidance on testing</h3>
<p>
In order to increase the quality of the test contributions, this
document offers a set of guidelines for conducting testing (see
<a href="#approach" class="sectionRef"></a>) and a testing progress
tracker to increase the surface coverage of tests (see
<a href="#test-progress-tracking" class="sectionRef"></a>).
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h3>Creating automation-friendly tests</h3>
<p>
In terms of actual tests produced for the CSS Regions, the main goal
is to ensure that most tests are automatable (i.e. they're either
reftests or use <code>testharness.js</code>). Even where manual tests
are absolutely necessary they should be written so that they can be
easily automated &ndash; as there are on-going efforts to make
WebDriver [[webdriver]] automated tests a first class citized in W3C
testing. This means that even if a manual test requires user
interaction, the validation or PASS/FAIL conditions should still be
clear enough as to allow automatic validation if said interaction is
later automated.
</p>
</section>
</section>
<section>
<h2>Risks and mitigation</h2>
<p>
There are a number of risks associated with creating a high-quality
test suite for CSS Regions. The most important ones are listed below.
</p>
<section>
<h3>Implicit interactions with a lot of other specs (and commonly accepted
browser behavior)</h3>
<p>
The CSS Region spec introduces a significant change in the way layout
can be done and as a consequence, many of the assumptions that hold in
the context of CSS&nbsp;2.1 must be re-validated in the context of CSS
Regions. In the meanwhile, a lot of new layout modules have been
proposed, with various degrees of implementor support and maturity.
Also, non-CSS specific specs introduced concepts that affect how style
is propagated (e.g. Shadow DOM [[shadow-dom]]) or how elements are
rendered and interact with their containing documents (e.g.
<code>&lt;iframe seamless&gt;</code> in HTML 5 [[HTML5]]).
</p>
<p>
All the above factors increase the testing surface and the number of
the possible cases that might need an explicitly specified behavior in
order to ensure intuitive and predictable results as well as stable
interaction with widely used browser features (that might not be <em>yet</em>
so strictly specified).
</p>
<p>
In terms of specifying the expected behavior, the current approach is
to try and specify it for specs that are final or nearly-final and to
just make a note of the possible interactions and unspecified behaviors
in the case of specs that are still in flux. In exceptional cases, a
new spec might be created to cater for the needs of multiple specs
(e.g. the CSS Fragmentation spec [[css3-break]]).
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h3>Big number of tests required</h3>
<div class="note">
Add here the estimation of tests required produced by
<a href="https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/tools/coverage" target="_blank">W3C test coverage</a>
tool. If possible, provide a better informed guess on the number of tests.
</div>
<p>
Given the complexity of the spec, a big number of tests will need to
be created to produce a test suite that can ensure interoperability
between implementations.
</p>
<p>
In this context, the main purpose of this document is to provide
useful informations for creating and contributing tests in an effective
manner in terms of coverage and test quality.
</p>
</section>
</section>
<section>
<h2>Approach</h2>
<p>
As spec testing cannot be realistically separated from testing a
particular implementation (except for the very simple cases), the
approach proposed for testing is one that tries to first cover as many
areas as possible, instead of deep diving on a certain feature or aspect
of the spec first. A side benefit of this approach is that the spec
tests can be used at any time to gauge the level of support of a certain
implementation.
</p>
<p>
Having this <em>breadth-first</em> approach in mind, tests will be
created for the testing areas listed in <a href="#testing-areas"
class="sectionRef"></a>. Testing will be done in multiple passes, each
aimed at covering more specific edge-cases.
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h2>Testing areas</h2>
<section>
<h3>Explicit testing areas</h3>
<p>
These are testing areas normatively defined by the spec. They cover
things explicitly or implicitly defined in the CSS Regions spec.
Please note that while detailed, this list is not necessarily
exhaustive and normative behaviors may not be contained in it.
When in doubt, consult the CSS Regions spec or ask a question on the
<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/">mailing
list</a>.
</p>
<p>
Below is the list of explicit testing areas:
<ol>
<li>
Proper parsing of the CSS properties and rules, rendering
according to the spec.
<ul>
<li><code>flow-into</code> and <code>flow-from</code>;
<code>flow-into</code> should be tested both with and without
the <code>content</code> switch</li>
<li><code>region-fragment</code></li>
<li>fragmentation additions: <code>region-avoid</code>,
<code>region-always</code> &ndash; see [[!css3-break]] for
details</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Nested named flows and cycle detection</li>
<li>Multi-column regions</li>
<li>Regions' pseudo-elements</li>
<li>Region auto-sizing (regions visual formatting details)</li>
<li>
CSSOM - interfaces implemented, behavior according to the spec
<div class="note">
<code>regionfragmentchange</code> might be removed from this level of the spec.
Adjust the contents of the list below accordingly.
</div>
<ul>
<li>
<code>NamedFlow</code> interface
</li>
<li>
<code>Region</code> interface
</li>
<li>
<code>regionoversetchange</code> event
</li>
<li>
<code>regionfragmentchange</code> event
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
DOM additions
<ul>
<li>
<code>getClientRects()</code> and
<code>getBoundingClientRects()</code></li>
<li>
<code>offsetTop</code>, <code>offsetBottom</code>,
<code>offsetLeft</code>, <code>offsetRight</code> and
<code>offsetParent</code>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
</p>
<div class="note">
Region styling has been removed from the spec waiting for it to be defined in the page
styling spec. This is a reminder for adding section here related to page/region styling
once this gets specified.
</div>
</section>
<section>
<h3>Implicit testing areas</h3>
<p>
These are testing areas either normatively defined in other specs
that explicitly refer to the CSS Regions spec (e.g. [[!css3-break]])
or simply not explicitly defined, but implied by various aspects of
the spec (e.g. processing model, CSS 2.1 compliance, etc.).
Please note that while detailed, this list is not necessarily
exhaustive and normative behaviors may not be contained in it.
When in doubt, consult the CSS Regions spec or ask a question on the
<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/">mailing
list</a>.
</p>
<p>
Below is the list of implicit testing areas:
<ol>
<li>
CSS Regions and layout modules:
<ul>
<li>Floats</li>
<li>Positioned elements</li>
<li>Intrinsic and extrinsic sizing [[css3-sizing]] and auto-sized regions</li>
<li>CSS Flexbox [[css3-flexbox]]</li>
<li>CSS Multicolumn [[css3-multicol]] content in named flows</li>
<li>CSS Shapes [[css-shapes-1]]</li>
<li>CSS Grid Layout [[css3-grid-layout]]</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
CSS Regions and different types of elements
<ul>
<li>List items</li>
<li>
<code>&lt;iframe&gt;</code>
<ul>
<li>fragmentation of <code>&lt;iframe&gt;</code> and
<code>&lt;iframe seamless&gt;</code></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><code>&lt;video&gt;</code></li>
<li><code>&lt;canvas&gt;</code></li>
<li><code>&lt;table&gt;</code></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Stacking contexts</li>
<li>
Fragmentation
<ul>
<li>Named flow content fragmentation</li>
<li>Regions fragmentation</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
Dynamic content
<ul>
<li>Changing the content of the named flows or of the region chain at runtime</li>
<li>Interactive content: <code>contentEditable</code>, <code>designMode</code> and
input elements</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>User input events (e.g. mouse, touch, keyboard); this includes event propagation</li>
<li>User action pseudo-classes (e.g. <code>:active</code>, <code>:hover</code>)</li>
<li>Writing modes</li>
<li>Transforms</li>
<li>Transitions and animations</li>
<li>
Shadow DOM
<ul>
<li>Regions inside shadow trees</li>
<li>Flowing content from shadow trees</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Content clipping and overflowing</li>
<li>Pseudo-elements in named flow contents</li>
</ol>
</p>
<div class="note">
Region styling has been removed from the spec waiting for it to be defined in the page
styling spec. This is a reminder for adding section here related to page/region styling
interacting with <code>&lt;style scoped&gt;</code> once this gets specified.
</div>
</section>
</section>
<section>
<h2>People and responsibilities</h2>
<p>
Below is a list of people you should reach out to if you have any
questions related to this document or testing CSS Regions in general:
<ul>
<li>Alan Stearns &ndash; editor and test coordinator for CSS Regions spec</li>
<li>Rebecca Hauck &ndash; CSSWG testing owner</li>
</ul>
</p>
</section>
<section>
<h2>Test progress tracking</h2>
<p>
Currently test progress tracking is done via gitHub
<a href="https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/issues/milestones?with_issues=yes">milestones</a>
and <a href="https://github.com/w3c/csswg-test/issues?milestone=9&state=open">issues</a>.
</p>
</section>
</body>
</html>
Reference in a new issue View git blame Copy permalink