wpt VS cli

To reply mostly with my WPT Core Team hat off, mostly summarising the history of how we've ended up here:

A build script used by significant swaths of the test suite is almost certainly out; it turns out people like being able to edit the tests they're actually running. (We _do_ have some build scripts — but they're mostly just mechanically generating lots of similar tests.

A lot of the goal of WPT (and the HTML Test Suite, which it effectively grew out of) has been to have a test suite that browsers are actually running in CI: historically, most standards test suites haven't been particularly amenable to automation (often a lot of, or exclusively, manual tests, little concern for flakiness, etc.), and with a lot of policy choices that effectively made browser vendors choose to write tests for themselves and not add new tests to the shared test suite: if you make it notably harder to write tests for the shared test suite, most engineers at a given vendor are simply going to not bother.

As such, there's a lot of hesitancy towards anything that regresses the developer experience for browser engineers (and realistically, browser engineers, by virtue of sheer number, are the ones who are writing the most tests for web technologies).

That said, there are probably ways we could make things better: a decent number of tests for things like Grid use check-layout-th.js (e.g., https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/f763dd7d7b7ed...).

One could definitely imagine a world in which these are a test type of their own, and the test logic (in check-layout-th.js) can be rewritten in a custom test harness to do the same comparisons in an implementation without any JS support.

The other challenge for things like Taffy only targeting flexbox and grid is we're unlikely to add any easy way to distinguish tests which are testing interactions with other layout features (`position: absolute` comes to mind!).

My suggestion would probably be to start with an issue at https://github.com/web-platform-tests/rfcs/issues, describing the rough constraints, and potentially with one or two possible solutions.

It also helps that there are tests

https://web-platform-tests.org/

You can see how Mozilla tests the compliance of their built-in elements in the Gecko repository (the ok and is assertions are defined in their SimpleTest testing framework). And here's the Web Platform Tests' reflection harness, with data for each built-in element in sibling files, that almost every browser pass.

We have our own test suite (orginally derived from the test suite of Meta's Yoga layout library [0]) which consists of text fixtures that are small HTML snippets [1] and a test harness [2] that turns those into runnable tests, utilising headless chrome both to parse the HTML and to generate the assertions based on the layout that Chrome renders (so we are effectively comparing our implementation against Chrome). We currently have 686 generated tests (covering both Flexbox and CSS Grid).

We would like to utilise the Web Platform Test suite [3], however these are not in a standard format and many of the tests require JavaScript so we are not currently able to do that.

[0]: https://github.com/facebook/yoga

[1]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/tree/main/test_fixtures

[2]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/tree/main/scripts/gentes...

[3]: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/css/cs...

The metrics are based on the passing rate for the web-platform-tests (WPT) project, the automated test suite for web standards. The completion rate is categorised as either stable, or experimental. There is no definition of what experimental entails, presumably features that are behind experimental flags are included. Stable is better to go off in any case.

Depends on what you are trying to achieve. You can run WPT MSE https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/media-source and WebCodecs https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/webcodecs tests manually to learn by doing.

Manually running the tests in Web Platform Tests should keep you busy.

Not sure what you mean? I referred to Web API's, which generally means Web platform API's; that is Web platform API's tested by Web Platform Tests https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.

If you want CSS to be the same across browsers then help implement CSS tests and file bugs

https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/Overview.en.html

https://web-platform-tests.org/

better specs are great, but tests will actually find the edge cases and lead to more convergence.

Run all these tests locally https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/dom.

This package is widely used for powerful CLI builds, it is used for example for Kubernetes CLI and GitHub CLI, in addition to offering some cool features such as automatic completion of shell, automatic recognition of flags (the tags) , and you can use -h or -help for example, among other facilities.

This Docker image is designed to support implementing Github Actions with Python. As of version 4.0.0., it starts with the official python docker image as the base which is a Debian OS. It specifically uses python:3-slim to keep the image size down for faster loading of Github Actions that use pyaction. On top of the base, we've installed curl gpg, git, and the GitHub CLI. We added curl and gpg because they are needed to install the GitHub CLI, and they may come in handy anyway (especially curl) when implementing a GitHub Action.

You might be interested in GitHub's cli tool, which is open source, if you want to access GitHub without running their proprietary JS code.

https://cli.github.com/

👉 Note: This script uses the GitHub CLI. So make sure you've installed that if you haven't already. Instructions here.

View on GitHub

(Context: I'm pretty thick into Nix, and have been for about four years. Most of this post is focussed on the NixOS desktop experience, so DevOps nerds, ymmv.)

Unpopular opinion: Nix is not that hard.

What's "hard" from a nix-promotion strategy is motivating people to understand why they would want the benefits it offers. Mostly because Nix, especially with home-manager, dramatically worsens UX for several day-to-day tasks, simply by violating the Law of Least Surprise every couple of hours in normal use.

I want a fully idempotent, version-locked, rewindable user environment, with a version-controlled central config, because I have half a dozen devices that, for reasons, I need to keep perfectly interchangeable with one another. Most users do not want this, for the simple fact that mutating their configs and differentiating them locally on specific machines is not a bug, but a feature.

Even more than that, it's an expectation that most software developers share as well.

Case in point: I filed a bug against the GitHub CLI last week. If any org has the scope and motivation to build software that's compatible with NixOS, an OS most of whose users are developers, it should be GitHub, which is, at least notionally, all about developers, developers, developers. A change in GH required a config format migration, which was sensibly done by opening the config .yml and rewriting it.

Of course, this breaks NixOS not just in practice but in principle. NixOS/home-manager makes config files read-only. Surprise! https://github.com/cli/cli/issues/8462

The response from GitHub was basically, "yeah, we knew this was going to happen, we mentioned it to the packagers at NixOS, but we did it anyway, because it was still the best way to proceed for us." (And they weren't wrong.)

Now, once a month is an annoyance, but I run into these problems daily. I can't imagine any sane person -- which I am not -- would persist with using it.

Why do I keep using NixOS, then? Because I am terribly and disproprotionately annoyed by small changes in my user experience, which I find disruptive to my workflow and hence threaten my success. For me, forbidding apps from mutating the config files I established for them is a selling point. Being able to version-control an idempotent declarative config for all of them at once is heaven.

Unless you're like me, you'll hate NixOS. But some were meant for Nix.

Because

To use a proper dynamic auth for ghcr.io you can create a "credential helper" and then it is supported by flux, see here: https://fluxcd.io/flux/cheatsheets/oci-artifacts/#authentication Unfortunately the "official" credential helper for ghcr.io doesn't exist. I use this simple script as a helper: https://gist.github.com/pkit/a98411d21ecc9293066f4579088187d1 Which requires gh cli to be installed.

This Docker image is designed to support implementing Github Actions with Python. As of version 4.0.0., it starts with the official python docker image as the base which is a Debian OS. It specifically uses python:3-slim to keep the image size down for faster loading of Github Actions that use pyaction. On top of the base, we've installed curl gpg, git, and the GitHub CLI. We added curl and gpg because they are needed to install the GitHub CLI, and they may come in handy anyway (especially curl) when implementing a GitHub Action.

Two CLI tools I install right away are the GitHub CLI (via brew) and the Netlify CLI (via npm).

From the second article, a minor point but possibly helpful to other here, he contrasts doing everything in the terminal with stacked commits vs going to the Github UI. If people aren't aware, Github offers a cli tool[1]. I've been using it for a few months now and am finding it does make me more productive -- it's nice to be able to open up a PR directly from my terminal. I do still use the GH UI for a lot of things, but I'll often at least start in the terminal, and it also makes the transition from terminal to browser easy as many commands support the `--web` flag open up the right page for you (eg `gh repo view --web`).

[1] https://cli.github.com/