[webkit-dev] Another WPT bite
rniwa at webkit.org
Tue May 9 12:55:10 PDT 2017
Forgot to CC webkit-dev.
- R. Niwa
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Geoffrey Garen <ggaren at apple.com> wrote:
>> What we're suggesting is to give preferential treatments to
>> testharness.js over js-test.js / js-test-pre.js when you were already
>> planning to write a test with the latter two scripts.
>> OK, I think this makes sense.
>> But I still think the very best kind of test is a flat file with 10-20 lines
>> frameworks get in the way.
> Sure. We certainly don't want to be using testharness.js for JSC
> issues for example. Because they can be contributed as a pure JS test
> to test262.
> However, if we're testing WebIDL semantics, for example, then there is
> a tremendous value in us writing a test case that can be shared with
> other browser vendors in web-platform-tests. And for those, the ship
> has sailed to use testharness.js because convincing all other browser
> vendors to use js-test.js or any other JS testing framework would be
> hard at this point, and they want some automated way to knowing
> whether a test had passed or not, a simple human readable output of
> PASS or FAIL in the document would not work for their needs.
>> - Tests would be more easily upstreamable to web-platform-tests, which are
>> run by all major browser engines. This would help a lot in terms of
>> interoperability. As previously discussed, Gecko and Blink already do
>> automated export of tests to web-platform-tests. I believe we should do in
>> the same direction and contribute more tests back.
>> I wonder why these other projects do automated export instead of
>> incorporating testharness.js directly.
> Both Gecko and Blink use testharness.js in their own tests, and export
> them back to web-platform-tests. The automated part is the exportation
> of files from their own repositories to web-platform-tests.
> - R. Niwa
More information about the webkit-dev