Conversation
smessie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just leaving some thoughts here while going through the current draft.
Co-authored-by: Ieben Smessaert <smessie@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ieben Smessaert <smessie@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ieben Smessaert <smessie@users.noreply.github.com>
04-tests.bs
Outdated
|
|
||
| This test is about a function `initialization(url)`. The function will return the URL of the collection and the URL of the root node. | ||
|
|
||
| We will test this with various URLs containing different contents. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be better to explain the purpose of the TREE test specification (perhaps in an overview section). For example (correct me if I am wrong):
The TREE test specification aims to provide a set of tests for validating that a tree client implementation conforms to the TREE specification. The TREE implementors can use this conforming client to interact with data sources to validate TREE conformity.
Additionally, it might be clearer (to people like me XD) to explain what the initialization function does. For example:
The
initialization(url)function returns the URL of the collection and the URL of the root node.The following test scenarios describe how the
initialization(url)function of the tree client should behave in various situations involving the TREE and the parameter URL.
|
Hi @pietercolpaert, |
feat: update test specification
I now made sure you have write access as well! |
|
- I envision that the spec tests can only test a tree:Node (basic elements of the Tree), or a part of the full tree graph, therefore I made these two categories in the conformance points. - The tests, in my view, need to emphasize the minimum requirements of a TREE implementation (the content of the TREE). - I included the generated HTML in the PR as well. Please feel free to comment on the current version. I would like to collect feedback on the current format and will remove the HTML once the PR is settled.
fix; merge the update of the main branch
|
Instead we’re going for #154 |
Working on a proposal to add tests cases in the spec for #97