Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

On 12/16/13 12:53 PM, ext James Graham wrote:
> On 16/12/13 16:43, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> On 12/16/13 11:20 AM, ext James Graham wrote:
>>> On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>>>>> [IR] <http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect
>>>>> tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077
>>>>> which says that
>>>>> http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/interfaces/DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope/postMessage/second-argument-null.html 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> should fail in any conformant UA, but it's marked as passing in Opera
>>>>> and Chrome.
>>>>>
>>>>> So presumably we will need to rerun the tests in all UAs again 
>>>>> once all
>>>>> the bugs have been fixed, yes?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I have found another couple of trivial bugs in the tests which I
>>>> will fix up. I will also have a got at fixing Ms2ger's test runner to
>>>> work in a better way, sort out some way to automate the visual output,
>>>> and hopefully we can generate a new implementation report with minimal
>>>> effort.
>>>
>>> So, I made a sample implementation report [1] using an in-browser test
>>> runner based on Ms2ger's earlier work (see public-test-infra for more
>>> details). The browsers are those that happened to be on my computer. I
>>> don't intend for anyone to take these results as authoritative, and
>>> more work is needed, but it is much better than editing a wiki. And
>>> has revealed yet more bugs in the tests.
>>>
>>> In time we can use this approach in collaboration with vendors to
>>> fully automate generating implementation reports.
>>>
>>> [1] http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/workers.html
>>
>> James - this is excellent!
>>
>> Did you run the tests via <http://www.w3c-test.org/testrunner/workers/>?
>> What would it take to include Travis's IE results?
>
> No, this is based on a new-ish tool that itself depends on the 
> self-hosted-tests changes [1].
>
> If Travis can make the results available in the same JSON format the 
> tool uses then we can incorporate them directly; having a common, 
> machine-writable format is the essential point of this work. However I 
> would suggest that he waits until we fix the broken tests and land the 
> self-hosted-tests changes and test runner / report generator. If 
> people are interesting in speeding this process up, the most valuable 
> thing they can do is help finish the review at [1].
>
> [1] https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/368

OK, thanks for the clarification. I see r/368 is now 93% complete so 
hopefully this will be completed RSN ;-).

-AB

Received on Friday, 20 December 2013 14:43:09 UTC