W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org > February 2013

RE: RfR: Progress Events Test Cases; deadline January 28

From: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:19:43 +0900
To: 'Arthur Barstow' <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "'Ms2ger @ Mozilla'" <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org, cpgs@samsung.com
Message-id: <049e01ce1025$58eec340$0acc49c0$@samsung.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 3:40 AM
> 
> Msger - Jungkee asked for your feedback below and again in <>. Would you
> please followup?
> 
> >> = interface.html
> >>
> >> tests 3,4,5 - none of the browsers pass this test but it's not really
> >> clear to me what specific requirements from the spec are being tested
> >> so at a minimum, some context for these tests should be added.
> >>
> > I think these assertions are valid in testing the enumerability and
> > configurability of each of the attribute of ProgressEvent. Hence, I
> > think they need to be treated as bugs but I also have a comment on this
> test case:
> >
> > Ms2ger,
> >
> > - This test case doesn't take an assertion for writable attribute.
> > Should the desc.writable be true or false?
> > - Doesn't the assertion on configurable have to be
> > assert_equals(desc.configurable, false) ?
> > where configurable is,
> > true if and only if the type of this property descriptor may be
> > changed and if the property may be deleted from the corresponding
object.
> 
> Ms2ger?
> 

The TC is valid. I've checked it from 4.4.6 attribute of WebIDL spec. The
three attributes, "lengthComputable", "loaded" and "total", should have
attributes [[Enumerable]]: true, [[Configurable]]: true.

However, I don't know why but 
  var desc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(ProgressEvent.prototype, a[1]);
returns undefined in Chrome and raises an illegal operation runtime error in
Firefox.

Let me file the bug.


> 
> >> test 6 - passes Opera and FF and fails Chrome. Not clear where the
> >> "Interface objects propoerties should not be Enumerable" requirement
> >> is defined.
> >>
> > Ms2ger, could you explain this?
> 
> Based on Jungkee's followup, this is a Chrome bug.
> 
> 
> >> test 7 - passed Opera and FF and fails Chrome
> >>
> > @Ms2ger, could you explain this?
> 
> Ms2ger?
> 

I've already confirmed it too:
"Likewise, test 7 is for [[Configurable]]: true and thus valid. Failure on
Chrome should be considered as a bug."

Let me file this bug as well.
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 11:20:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 April 2014 14:15:59 UTC