Should tentative tests require links?

[gsnedders]

For background, see my prior comment on #215 (comment):

[We have tentative tests where:]

• where there are WG resolutions not yet applied to the spec making tests tentative (e.g., /css/css-overflow/line-clamp/line-clamp-005.tentative.html is an example of this, with [css-overflow] Is continue: discard working in the fragment tree useful? w3c/csswg-drafts#7708 (comment)),
• where there is a proposal to change the spec to some other behaviour (e.g., svg-aam/role/role-img.tentative.html, with SVG image role should align with HTML on missing versus empty alt w3c/svg-aam#32),
• where there is a proposed addition to the spec (e.g., /html/dom/elements/global-attributes/the-anchor-attribute-001.tentative.html, with Add anchor attribute whatwg/html#9144),
• where the spec is unclear (e.g, webdriver/tests/bidi/input/release_actions/sequence_tentative.py, with Should a navigation clean-up the browsing context input state map? w3c/webdriver#1859).

According to our docs:

It should be apparent in context why the test is tentative and what needs to be resolved to make it non-tentative.

I'd hope that tentative tests would include a link to a spec bug that needs to be resolved for the test to be non-tentative.

However:

% rg --glob '*tentative*' 'https?://((bugs\.webkit\.org|bugs\.chromium\.org|crbug\.com|issues\.chromium\.org)/|github\.com/.*/(issue|pull))' --files-without-match | wc -l
    2078

…shows we have a very large number of tentative tests which don't link anywhere (even a vendor bug tracker!).

This makes it hard to audit the status of tentative tests, and what should and should not still be tentative.

An obvious option here is to require tentative tests to have a link — though what to is a reasonable question — which might be worth considering?