W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Updated idlharness.js

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:11:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fLoHFSQZYVfPyXD1NB7j9Fk1EdV2qO2WPUzv92Hq-3zA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
were you able to incorporate the improvements I suggested at [1]?

[1] https://github.com/darobin/webidl.js/pull/16

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> as you know, one of the tools that we have for testing is idlharness. What
> it does is basically that it processes some WebIDL, is given some objects
> that correspond to it, and it tests them for a bunch of pesky aspects that
> one should not have to test by hand.
>
> One of the issues with idlharness is that it has long been based on
> webidl.js which was a quick and dirty WebIDL parser that I'd written
> because I needed it for a project that petered out. This meant that it
> increasingly didn't support newer constructs in WebIDL that are now in
> common use.
>
> In order to remedy this, I have now made an updated version of idlharness
> that uses webidl2.js, a much better parser that is believed to be rather
> complete and correct (at least, it tests well against the WebIDL tests that
> we have). The newer webidl2.js does bring as much backwards compatibility
> with webidl.js as possible, but in a number of cases that simply wasn't
> possible (because WebIDL has changed too much to fit well into the previous
> model, and also because mistakes were made with it).
>
> You can find the updated version of idlharness in this branch:
>
>     https://github.com/w3c/**testharness.js/tree/webidl2<https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/tree/webidl2>
>
> The reason I'm prodding you is that idlharness, ironically enough, does
> not have a test suite. Because of that, I can't be entirely comfortable
> that the updated version works well and doesn't break existing usage. I've
> tested it with some existing content (e.g. http://berjon.com/tmp/geotest/*
> *) but that's no guarantee.
>
> So if you've been using idlharness, I'd like to hear about it. If you
> could give the new version a ride to see if you get the same results it'd
> be lovely. Once I hear back from enough people that it works (or if no one
> says anything) I'll merge the changes to the master branch.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 18:12:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:57 GMT