doc: add Testing WG - #5461
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
This is an important addition to the nodejs family. Happy to see it go official -- LGTM. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@nodejs/testing @nodejs/ctc Have we figured out the relationship with smoke testing? Does that fit within the bounds of this WG or perhaps have some cross-over with LTS or a separate WG or simply just a tool that we happen to maintain? It'd be good to have a path for folks to get involved in smoke testing specifically if they felt passionate about that. / @thealphanerd |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Fwiw I'm involved in Build / testing / lts... all of which I think are important for smoke testing. It's own WG seems over kill to me at the moment |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
There was a separate attempt at one point to start a smoke-testing WG but it is entirely inactive as far as I know. In my opinion, although, as with a lot of testing things, there's huge reliance on and interaction with Build, smoke testing would best fit under this WG if you had to put it in one place for some reason. But that's just my opinion. I'm certainly open to other ideas. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Coordinate => Coordinating, Document => Documenting, and so on.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Coordinate => Coordinating etc. per @orangemocha and added a full-stop at the end of each bullet point.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Grammar nit. Otherwise LGTM. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
LGTM |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
no strong opinion here |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Has code coverage ever attempted on our source code? If it isn't, will it fall under the scope of this WG?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, for me, it was a nightmare to get working though due to the way we compile the js files into the binary. Maybe @chrisdickinson has a different opinion. IIRC, he also did some work on that
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say "code coverage" fits under both "overall strategy for improving testing" and "improve tooling for testing".
Sorry, something went wrong.
Add the proposed Testing WG. WORKING_GROUPS.md indicates that opening a pull request to that file is the way to request that a charter be ratified by the TC. So, that's what this is. The charter document is currently: https://github.com/nodejs/testing/blob/master/Charter.md
|
This was ratified by the CTC today. It still needs to be ratified by @nodejs/build. They're next meeting is next week, I believe. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
This was ratified by the Build WG today. 🎉 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Add the proposed Testing WG. WORKING_GROUPS.md indicates that opening a pull request to that file is the way to request that a charter be ratified by the TC. So, that's what this is. The charter document is currently: https://github.com/nodejs/testing/blob/master/Charter.md PR-URL: nodejs#5461 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Alexis Campailla <orangemocha@nodejs.org> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>
Add the proposed Testing WG. WORKING_GROUPS.md indicates that opening a pull request to that file is the way to request that a charter be ratified by the TC. So, that's what this is. The charter document is currently: https://github.com/nodejs/testing/blob/master/Charter.md PR-URL: #5461 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Alexis Campailla <orangemocha@nodejs.org> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>
Add the proposed Testing WG. WORKING_GROUPS.md indicates that opening a pull request to that file is the way to request that a charter be ratified by the TC. So, that's what this is. The charter document is currently: https://github.com/nodejs/testing/blob/master/Charter.md PR-URL: #5461 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Alexis Campailla <orangemocha@nodejs.org> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>
Add the proposed Testing WG. WORKING_GROUPS.md indicates that opening a pull request to that file is the way to request that a charter be ratified by the TC. So, that's what this is. The charter document is currently: https://github.com/nodejs/testing/blob/master/Charter.md PR-URL: #5461 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Alexis Campailla <orangemocha@nodejs.org> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>
Add the proposed Testing WG. WORKING_GROUPS.md indicates that opening a pull request to that file is the way to request that a charter be ratified by the TC. So, that's what this is. The charter document is currently: https://github.com/nodejs/testing/blob/master/Charter.md PR-URL: #5461 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Alexis Campailla <orangemocha@nodejs.org> Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>
Add the proposed Testing WG. WORKING_GROUPS.md indicates that opening
a pull request to that file is the way to request that a charter be
ratified by the TC. So, that's what this is.
The charter document is currently:
https://github.com/nodejs/testing/blob/master/Charter.md
If this charter overlaps with the Build WG charter, then the Build WG will also have to ratify it. @nodejs/build