W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > January 2016

Re: [battery] getBattery() test case feedback

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:23:02 +0100
To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "Zhang, Zhiqiang" <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "ms2ger@gmail.com" <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56953676.8030907@w3.org>
On 11/01/2016 13:56, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
> Zhiqiang - can you summarize the reason for test failures in
> all.html, in particular for test cases that fail in both Chrome and
> Firefox and are not manual tests?
>
> I believe battery-interface-idlharness.html and
> battery-interface.html tests are overlapping, so we should pick one
> and drop another. If promises support in idlharness.js is limited, we
> might consider using battery-interface.html instead and patch it
> where needed to get good test coverage. Or better, patch
> idlharness.js, and use the former tests.

I've found a bug in how idlharness was being used for battery, and have 
brought a patch:
https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/2469

With that patch (and the the promise-throw patch to ildharness), Firefox 
gets 100% on the idlharness test. Chrome has 4 failures:
* one due to throwing instead of rejecting on promise returning methods 
(in this case, getBattery())
* one due to a bad class string for the prototype of BatteryManager (not 
sure where that comes from)
* two due to not implementing addEventListener/removeEventListener as 
expected.

I think the 1st and last 2 bugs can be argued as not specific to Battery 
API; the 2nd one probably deserves more investigation though.

I haven't looked at the manual test cases failures yet.

Dom
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2016 17:23:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:07 UTC