fixrule(meta_refresh_delay | meta_redirect_optional) Reports "cannot tell" and "passed" while ACT bisz58 expects "Failed" for 3 Fail Example test cases

[philljenkins]

Checker rule meta_redirect_optional is also involved with these ACT rule(s) below.

Checker rule meta_refresh_delay reports inconsistent with ACT rule(s) below:

• Failed examples should be failed by at least one of the Checker rules fail reason codes.
• Checker should be mapping (report against) the same success criteria as what is expected by the ACT rule.

4. Partially inconsistent with ACT rule Meta element has no refresh delay (no exception) bisz58 with 3 failed test cases:
   • "cannot tell" Failed Example 1
   • "passed" Failed Example 2
   • "passed" Failed Example 3
   • Mapping: Checker reports against 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable, while ACT expects both 2.2.4 Interruptions AAA and 3.2.5 Change on Request AAA.
   • RuleID: meta_refresh_delay with ReasonID: Potential_1 reports against bisz58:cantTell | bc659a:cantTell
   • RuleID: meta_refresh_delay with ReasonID: Pass_0 also reports against bisz58:pass | bc659a:pass
   • RuleID: meta_redirect_optionalwith ReasonID: fail_longrefresh flags (doesn't report to ACT) this Fail Example 2 test case as Violation, but it's mapped to 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable while ACT would expect it to be mapped to 2.2.4 Interruptions AAA and 3.2.5: Change on Request AAA. Again, this ...optional rule does not currently report against this ACT bisz58. The ...optional rule currently only report against ACT bc659a.
   • Secondary requirement: ACT considers 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable (Level A) a "secondary requirement" because 2.2.1 is less strict than this ACT bisz58 rule. 2.2.1 allows redirects longer than 20 hours. The meta element in Failed Example 2 redirects after 20 hours.

Reference

• Checker's Implementation report of ACT rules https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/implementations/equal-access/ (updated 7 November 2024)
• Checker's raw results sent to ACT https://unpkg.com/[email protected]/act-report-v2.txt
• Checker's Rule mapping spreadsheet file on box

[philljenkins]

See latest Rule mapping spreadsheet:

[philljenkins]

Relevant Artifacts

• however, these are auto-built with master 3.x and include the reporting failures. I will need to replace them with the master 4.x artifacts:

master 3.x artifacts

• ACT Text Results
• Rule Listing
• Rule mapping spreadsheet

master 4.x artifacts

• ACT Text Results
• Rule listing
• Rule mapping spreadsheet

[philljenkins]

Ignoring these test cases in ACT mapping/reporting. We test/QA to be concerned about fail test cases not failed by Checker and correct WCAG SC reporting in this main 4.x Artifact ACT Text Results 2025-01-14 from PR #2158 :

Ignore

• 6a7281 Passed Example 5: Expected passed, but returned earl:failed
• akn7bn Inapplicable Example 5: Expected inapplicable, but returned earl:failed
• akn7bn Inapplicable Example 6: Expected inapplicable, but returned earl:failed
• 73f2c2 Passed Example 8: Expected passed, but returned earl:failed
• 7d6734 Passed Example 2: Expected passed, but returned earl:failed

[philljenkins]

Expected Failed

These are somewhat of surprises in 4.x. These ACT test cases should be failed, but were not in 4.x

ACT Rule Image has non-empty accessible name

• 23a2a8 Failed Example 2: Expected failed, but returned earl:inapplicable [Checker should fail this test case.]

ACT RUle

• [7d6734 Failed Example 4: https://www.w3.org/WAI/content-assets/wcag-act-rules/testcases/7d6734/94396aaa5928a68aba7320ea3690ca6c302fdcab.html
  �[31m--Expected failed, but returned earl:inapplicable