W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2012

RE: automated testing for IRI (and URI) Specs?

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 17:10:07 -0700
To: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
CC: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon (robin@w3.org)" <robin@w3.org>, Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E36C363A4@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
I started to update http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriTesting with additional information and a few more thoughts.

I'm sure there's some duplication, missing material, and errors, please feel free to correct.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Weber [mailto:chris@lookout.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:15 PM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: public-iri@w3.org; uri@w3.org; Robin Berjon (robin@w3.org); Rebecca
> Hauck
> Subject: Re: automated testing for IRI (and URI) Specs?
> On 10/20/2012 1:08 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> > Anyone know of any other existing IRI/URI/URL/LEIRI tests?
> >
> > For tests that push DNS we might need some other test framework
> > (including an DNS server which will accept requests  <anything>.site.com
> where anything is an arbitrary string,
> > and send request with Host header) so that I can test the IDNA conversion
> bits.
> >
> I have a compiled collection of about 500+ tests from Webkit, Julian, as
> well as other sources available at: https://github.com/cweb/iri-tests.
> I'd be happy to convert these into a JSON or some other format if it was
> helpful.  I definitely agree that a DNS server, as well as a Web server,
> would be useful for testing.  In my own setup I used:
> 1. The test cases linked to above.
> 2. A DNS server which would respond to *.foo.bar where * was an
> arbitrary subdomain string as you noted.
> 3. A Web server which could:
>  a) Serve each test case individually;
>  b) Capture incoming HTTP requests based on each test case, allowing me
> to analyze both the Host header as well as the path component in the GET
> request.
> The test cases were served as both an href as well as an img src with
> the goals being to see how Web browsers parsed these URLs in two ways:
> 1. How each test case was parsed and represented in the DOM properties
> of the page.
> 2. How each test case resulted in an HTTP request, and how the
> components of that HTTP request (host header and GET path) compared to
> the parsed DOM (hostname and path) properties of the same test case.
> Unfortunately my setup was not very portable, but could be made so with
> some effort.  I actually did a little more than noted above, because I
> ran a packet sniffer to see what the corresponding DNS requests looked
> like as well.  I posted some of the early results up here:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At1OFOiVqCrvdFo3aFc1elhXS2
> pnVkpxOFZORjQ1cUE#gid=8
> as well as at Github.  I meant to clean things up, use a consistent DNS
> scheme, define metadata better, test refs, define expected conditions,
> etc. but didn't go that far.
> I did notice some substantial differences across Web browsers, and also
> found some instances where the HTTP request did not match the DOM
> properties for the same URL.  But maybe these are mostly edge cases.
> Best regards,
> Chris Weber
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 00:10:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC