W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2015

Harness Timeout versus <html class="reftest-wait">

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:28:52 -0400
To: Public CSS Test suite mailing list <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6fff8ed119ad0b9571edaa32a527df7d@gtalbot.org>

My message here is mostly a wiki-documentation topic.

<html class="reftest-wait">

used to be the way tests were coded in order for them to wait before 
comparing with a reference.


Now, we are supposed to use

<meta name="timeout" content="long">


<meta name="timeout" content="normal">

to achieve, to create such wait.

Is my assumption/supposition correct here?


- - - - - - - -

Harness Timeout
The overall harness admits two timeout values "normal" (the default) and 
"long", used for tests which have an unusually long runtime. After the 
timeout is reached, the harness will stop waiting for further async 
tests to complete. By default the timeouts are set to 10s and 60s, 
respectively, but may be changed when the test is run on hardware with 
different performance characteristics to a common desktop computer. In 
order to opt-in to the longer test timeout, the test must specify a meta 

<meta name="timeout" content="long">

Occasionally tests may have a race between the harness timing out and a 
particular test failing; typically when the test waits for some event 
that never occurs. In this case it is possible to use 
test.force_timeout() in place of assert_unreached(), to immediately fail 
the test but with a status of TIMEOUT. This should only be used as a 
last resort when it is not possible to make the test reliable in some 
other way.
Harness Timeout

Test Format Guidelines

Test Style Guidelines

Test Templates

CSS Naming Guidelines

Test Review Checklist

CSS Metadata
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2015 20:29:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:21 UTC