AMP validation for a single scenario

[sareh]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
After an AMP route has been created (#440) we want to be able to run a validation cli tool against a single page to see if it passes

Here is a page that explains what the validation tool does: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/fundamentals/validate

Describe the solution you'd like
To have an npm script in the package.json file that runs the amphtml-validator cli tool against a single article, e.g. /article/amp/scenario-01. The output should be displayed in the console. This validation does not need to be run on CI at this point. This will be handled in a future issue.

https://www.ampproject.org/docs/fundamentals/validate#command-line-tool

If there are any errors listed in the output, a separate issue should be opened to create an AMP-compliant component & container that addresses those points.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Since this is the recommended way to validate AMP pages, other options were not considered.

[chris-hinds]

Is the idea here to just make sure one does not break the AMP validation when making local changes? If so then this will be fine. We have been using the AMP validator for our current AMP setup since the initial launch and have not experienced any issues.

[sareh]

The aim in this specific Issue is to make the AMP validation output visible.
If run against a scenario with an image it will show errors, since we aren't using <amp-img> yet.
The aim is here to use the AMP validate in a way to have Test-Driven-Development of a sort - first there will be errors, then we will create Issues to address those errors (e.g. create an Image component that is AMP-compatible) then that'll make the amp-validate script no longer error.
Once we have addressed all the errors, we can then put this amp-validate as part of the CI process so that any future changes will fail the build unless addressed.

[chris-hinds]

Ahhh I see, makes perfect sense to me in that case. :)

[sareh]

Resolved as fixed, in #492.