Closed Jym77 closed 1 year ago
The additional tests look good to me, but I would want to get confirmation that they create actual problems before approving. Otherwise, there may be additional details we need to add into the background or accessibility support.
The additional tests look good to me, but I would want to get confirmation that they create actual problems before approving. Otherwise, there may be additional details we need to add into the background or accessibility support.
Ah, yes. Haven't really checked that (not sure how to… 😅 )
If they do not create a problem, then we should instead update the rule (+note saying why we accept them), and have them as Passed/Inapplicable examples, I guess (currently, they are failing the rule as it is written). If they are inconsistent dependant on UA/AT combination, we should replace them with an Accessibility Support note.
Don't know that the test suite necessarily needs to be this extensive. I don't mind if they are though, so fine with me.
I recently figured out that Alfa was passing these examples, and getting a consistent implementation of the rule despite that problem 😅
Call for review ends on March 23rd.
Call for review has ended. Merging.
While working on Alfa support for
webauthn
, we found out that there was a bunch of incorrect scenario we were not detecting 🙈 So adding some more failed examples to catch these.Not that theHTML spec for the tokens states: (emphasise mine)
The "just" bit is my reasoning for failing case with extra tokens at the end. I haven't check if these cause actual problems with autofilling 😅 If they don't, we should rather update the Expectation to state that they are not problematic.
Closes issue(s):
Need for Call for Review: This will require a 1 week Call for Review (adding a bunch of examples).
Pull Request Etiquette
When creating PR:
develop
branch (left side).After creating PR:
Rule
,Definition
orChore
.When merging a PR:
How to Review And Approve