[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 72010] Add new API for Vibration API spec.

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72010





--- Comment #36 from Kentaro Hara <haraken at chromium.org>  2012-01-29 20:38:03 PST ---
(From update of attachment 124419)
View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=124419&action=review

>>> LayoutTests/fast/dom/navigator-vibration.html:15
>>> +shouldBe("navigator.webkitVibrate(0); navigator.webkitVibrate([]);", "undefined");
>> 
>> Sorry for my previous bad comments! These tests can be written better as follows, right?
>> 
>> shouldBe("navigator.webkitVibrate(0)", "undefined");
>> shouldBe("navigator.webkitVibrate(1000)", "undefined");
>> shouldBe("navigator.webkitVibrate([])", "undefined");
>> shouldBe("navigator.webkitVibrate([1000, 300, 500])", "undefined");
>> 
>> In addition, it is a good idea to add the following test cases:
>> 
>> navigator.webkitVibrate()  // This should be equivalent to navigator.webkitVibrate(0)
>> navigator.webkitVibrate(-1)
>> navigator.webkitVibrate(4294967295)
>> navigator.webkitVibrate(4294967296)
>> navigator.webkitVibrate(1.23)
> 
> OK, but I can't check '4294967295' with JSC because it doesn't support unsigned long properly.
> Instead, I will check '2147483647'. Can I make it this way?

Oh, nice catch!

That appears to be a bug of JSC. The spec says that unsigned long should be [0, 4294967295] (http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#es-unsigned-long). Would you please file the bug and then write a test case for 4294967295 with a comment like "This fails in JSC due to bug XXXXX"?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.webkit.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.