- From: Sam Uong <samuong@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:57:43 +0000
- To: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 17:58:26 UTC
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:53 PM James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote: > On 24/01/17 17:41, Sam Uong wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > My immediate thought is that we want to avoid a few things: > > > > 1. code duplication - particularly for more complex parameters, such > as > > those described in the Actions section of the spec > > 2. injecting errors - how easy will it be to test error conditions by > > sending malformed requests? > > The intent of the wdclient library is to make it easy to do "normal" > things in which the protocol syntax is followed, and possible to do > unusual things in which the syntax of commands is not followed. > Uh, yeah, I meant to say what James said. We want to avoid code duplication, but we want to have the ability to inject errors.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 17:58:26 UTC