795022 - adjust background/vector/empty reftests to fit in 600x600 pixels

Status: NEW

(Core :: Layout, defect)

Description

[Joel Maher ( :jmaher ) (UTC -8)]

We have agreed upon a standard low resolution for our reftests at 600x600, the majority of the background/vector/empty tests have larger resolutions.

Comment 1

[Shriram (irc: Mavericks)]

Attachment: Patch that changes height or width to 590 px

Comment 2

[Joel Maher ( :jmaher ) (UTC -8)]

Comment on attachment 665832 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch that changes height or width to 590 px

in case this review got lost, ping

Comment 3

[Jeff Walden [:Waldo]]

It's not lost, I'm just dreading it.  :-\

I kind of wonder if we don't maybe (maybe) have enough binary-power space to halve all the dimensions and preserve all the simple binary-power goodness that's currently there.  I have not investigated, at all, whether this is or is not feasible.

Comment 4

[Joel Maher ( :jmaher ) (UTC -8)]

this is why I need a review from somebody who knows more about these tests than I do.  I can validate that they work fine and we are reporting pass/fail appropriately.  Any additional data you need, just ask and I can help get it.

Comment 5

[Gérard Talbot]

Hello,

There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding and duplication work going on.

I have been working to convert the /background-size/vector created by Jeff Walden at CSSWG to best meet with 
CSSWG Test Format guidelines 
http://wiki.csswg.org/test/format

and I have started work as you can see:

http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/css3-background/background-size/vector/

600x600 size of tests is just 1 of the Test format guidelines.

The first 30 tests at
http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/mozilla/submitted/css3-background/background-size/vector/
have been filename-renamed accordingly. Most tests had long filenames with some being excessively long.

All of the tests have <link rel="help"> to spec, link author, and have only 1 single div: div#outer and div#inner have been merged into 1 div. All of the tests have an increased border-width so that we could better notice implementation errors/faulty implementation with regards to background positioning area.

I see that Joel Maher has been adding the appropriate 4 <link rel="help" and the <meta name="flags" content="svg" /> in attachment 665832 [details] [diff] [review]

I have been aware of this bug report only minutes ago :(

We absolutely need to coordinate our efforts here so that no time, efforts, typing are unneedlessly wasted or duplicated.

Gérard

Comment 6

[Jeff Walden [:Waldo]]

Do you really have to rename the test names to be more obscure?  It is *incredibly* helpful to have all the tests follow a consistent (and fully descriptive) naming scheme so that test/reference assignment can be done purely by reading the test name.  It would have been at least an hour or two more time for me to do test/reference assignment without having the naming scheme that I was using.  (I suppose I could do a post-rename, but that also makes it impossible for anyone else to do quick verification after the fact.)

What does it buy anyone to *require* that test names be uninformative?  I really don't get this.

Comment 7

[Gérard Talbot]

(In reply to Jeff Walden [:Waldo] (remove +bmo to email) from comment #6)


Test Format at CSSWG
File name format
"
 The new file name format is test-topic-###.ext where test-topic somewhat describes the test and ### is a zero-filled number used to keep the file names unique.

The file name is no longer restricted to 31 characters, but please try to keep them short.

test-topic
A short identifier that describes the test. The test-topic should avoid conjunctions, articles, and prepositions. It is a file name, not an English phrase: it should be as concise as possible. 
"
http://wiki.csswg.org/test/format#file-name-format


I believe - albeit only the CSSWG Test Manager and Harness current admin may be able to confirm this - that long (40 characters) or very long (50+ characters) filename can create problems with Shepherd or the Harness. It certainly can make the width of 1st column excessively wide in the results page.
I believe there may be a hard limit to length of filename too.

fully descriptive naming scheme versus more obscur: 
eg. background-size-vector-013 is not completely obscur or uninformative as a filename. There is a logic in how filename are built: the most important CSS property or CSS feature is part of the filename. 
eg. wide--12px-auto--nonpercent-width-percent-height is not necessarly clear to anyone/everyone - besides the test author - what this test is about. In any case, a filename should not replace, should not compensate and should not duplicate (redundance) a descriptive text title and a judicious text assert.

I must invite you to view this page:

http://test.csswg.org/suites/css3-background/nightly-unstable/html4/chapter-3.htm#s3.9

The filename is the first, leftmost column; the title is in the last, right-most column and, below it, there may be the optional text assert (italicized). Normally, for optimal information presentation, there should be as little duplication of information between the filename and the title as possible. I would say the same for the CSSWG Test Harness:
eg
http://test.csswg.org/harness/test/CSS3-BACKGROUND_DEV/section/3.9/tall--cover--nonpercent-width-nonpercent-height-viewbox/
: the filename and the title are presented along with the test.

"test/reference assignment can be done purely by reading the test name": right now, for the 30 /vector/ already filename-renamed tests, the test/reference assignment is done, is predictable also by just reading the test filename.

All of 173 /vector/ tests have a comment at the top (lines 8 to 11 in source code) indicating your initial filename.

I believe the intent was to eventually re-import into mozilla-central those 173 /vector/ tests once these were converted to CSSWG format.

Comment 8

[Gérard Talbot]

(In reply to comment #7)

> "test/reference assignment can be done purely by reading the test name":
> right now, for the 30 /vector/ already filename-renamed tests, the
> test/reference assignment is done, is predictable also by just reading the
> test filename.

Right now, this is partially true for the 30 /vector/ already filename-renamed tests ... but eventually all 173 /vector/ tests will be associated with a reftest on which its filename has been renamed and uses a certain logic:

"
References should be named after the earliest test that uses them in the test-topic series they belong to, and must have either -ref or -notref appended to the name.
"
http://wiki.csswg.org/test/reftest#the-reftest-test-file

Eg.
Let's say that first test that gets associated with ref-t-lime8x16-aqua8x16.html as a reftest is background-size-123.html, then ref-t-lime8x16-aqua8x16.html will be eventually filename-renamed as background-size-123-ref.html . And if background-size-145.html also is associated with ref-t-lime8x16-aqua8x16.html, then the link will be

<link rel="match" href="background-size-123-ref.html">


> All of 173 /vector/ tests have a comment at the top (lines 8 to 11 in source
> code) indicating your initial filename.

This is important to do during the test transition to CSSWG test format.

Gérard

Comment 9

[Joel Maher ( :jmaher ) (UTC -8)]

Comment on attachment 665832 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch that changes height or width to 590 px

cancelling review- 3 years with no action

Comment 10

[Jeff Walden [:Waldo]]

:-(  One of these days, I will get to this.  The problem is that I expect "getting to it" will mean rewriting it to preserve the nice power-of-two properties in the dimensions currently chosen.  And if it doesn't take at least a full day to deal with all the background-size vector tests, with nothing else completed, I will be shocked.  And I have yet to find such a full day available, to spare that level of concentration.

Comment 11

[Gérard Talbot]

Re: tall--auto--omitted-width-percent-height
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2014Aug/0018.html

(In reply to Jeff Walden [:Waldo] (remove +bmo to email) from comment #10)
> And if it doesn't take at
> least a full day to deal with all the background-size vector tests, 

If you retrofit those 143 tests to comply with CSSWG test format, then it will easily take more than a full day.

Ideally, you should retrofit those 143 tests to comply with CSSWG test format and then re-import the entire set of 173 /vector/ tests into Mozilla's  mozilla-central repository.