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

RE: [battery] getBattery() test case feedback

From: Zhang, Zhiqiang <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:53:00 +0000
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@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: <0EA8FB2070816C499E0A50AC1B0B5C163ACCE8FF@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Hi,

> From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:23 AM
> 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
> Subject: Re: [battery] getBattery() test case feedback
> 
> 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

I will take a look at this later today and this

https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/pull/161

> 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.

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

I will look at them and report back.

Thanks,
Zhiqiang
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2016 01:53:34 UTC

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