Meeting minutes
Agenda
James: will next week be a cross roads meeting?
mk: lets focus on test development next week and skip the cross roads meeting this month.
group discussed https://
mk: seth, can you wrap up this issu (386) and close it?
seth: yes
group discussed https://
mk: we are going to talk about an issue today related to marking tests as draft. Should we leave this open until we close that issue?
james: yes
mk: group discussed https://
james: for this one we need to draft language and update the test runner
mk: can you do this, James?
james: yes
mk: thanks. Can you draft some language and we can review it?
james: yes
Revisit: Next Patterns for Test Plan Development (issue 385)
Issue: https://
james: we have put a list of 6 issues in the issue. The first two are the file directory tree view examples.
mk: we have 3 tree view examples. should we get rid of the file treeview example with computed properties?
jon: it would simplify things, and they probably need to be updated.
mk: so, that would mean we get rid of the computed properties one from this list.
james: if you are proposing removing one of these examples from the APG, would you remove roving tabindex exmaples, for example?
mk: not sure
mk: james, you can put the navigation treeview. Remove the file treeview with computed properties. Delay the declared one so that we can improve what it illustrates in the APG
james: when are those improvements on the APG side likely to happen?
mk: we don't have an open issue for updating this.
mk: we can revisit this in about 3 weeks
james: the next pattern is the date picker spin button example
mk: jon, the datepicker spin button is good, right?
jon: I'm not aware of any issues with it.
james: and then, we will revisit the rest of the sliders
mk: we can add button and toggle button to the list
rob: I did create the test plan for the button
james: I think it needs some updates to better match the latest test designs
James: so we will work on: navigation tree view, button, toggle button, date picker spin button, toolbar, horizontal slider, slider examples with orientation, file directory example with declared properties
Work through prioritised list of issues with test writing/ARIA-AT App crossover, with input from Seth and other Bocoup team members if present. Specific issues in priority order:
see agenda for list of priority order https://
james: for seth and others, what it is the best way to discuss this?
seth: we trust your order, no preferences from me
mk: there are two ways that I have thought about this. one way is thinking about which of these issues most immediately impacts how your write tests, and would if done later cause you to do more re-work.
mk: some, like 300, don't cause re-work, but does affect how the group operates, and thus how quickly we can move. We could discuss hacking how we operate to get around them.
james: if we look at ones with test-writing impact: the first issue is 363
(discussion around the issue)
mk: it sounds like we need to prioritize this. Maybe this is next week's meeting.
james: yes, that's my plan.
james: issue 388
mk: not having this means more writing of tests. Waiting on this might not mean we have to re-write tests, but we might need to re-structure tests.
james: where it could have a big impact would be if we decide to test non-apg patterns/elements
mk: I think this is not immediately as impactful as issue 363
james: I agree
james: we have some internal processes to reduce re-work and we can share that with seth down the road
james: issue 369, and related issue 358
james: I'm ignoring issue 370 as that doesn't matter for us as test writers
james: it would be good for us to chain setup scripts together, or share functionality between them
james: if we are going to indicate to the tester that they need to press a button, then we do need a way to provide a script to a known good state.
mk: this makes a ton of sense. This affects how tests are run.
mk: I think this is really important.
james: yes, because it will guarantee that tests are always run from a known good state
james: do you agree, seth?
seth: we would like to remove the iframe as a way to load tests.
seth: we need something like a rendering engine
mk: james and seth, should deep dive with Jes's team to figure out some options here and come back to the group
james: the last issue is 366
james: I think that's a CG discussion
james: maybe even provide examples of what to expect to hear for what would fulfill the assertion
mk: yes, we as a CG should dive into this
james: there are a few issues that we didn't get to
mk: seth, I think issue 300 as pretty high priority because it is something that we want to track over time as metrics. And it can affect how we want to work right now.