Re: [sensors] Introduce WebDriver extension API

> I'm not sure that the distinction about the timestamps needs to be reflected in
the name. If you think that's helpful, then maybe "Values" is a more meaningful
suffix than "SetParams". In other words, "MockSensorReadingValue".

Thanks, I like "MockSensorReadingValues"! 

>For instance, I could
imagine a test in web-platform-tests that set the min and max and then asserted
that the resulting frequency actually fell between those boundaries.

Yes, Chromium have such tests at [here]( 

>I'm no implementer, though. I could also imagine that folks aren't particularly
interested in testing this. If we specified the testing API as requiring a
"min" and a "max," they might simply choose one of those two values (instead of
building the mock implementation to authentically derive a frequency). It seems
like we might want to ask some implementers if this is something they actually
want to test.

>From the perspective of testing implementation of sensor specs, requiring a "min" and a "max" is definitely a necessary requirement. Although web developers might be uncomfortable with that way.
If we couldn't make both happy, we should make both meet their requirement. 
More inputs from implementers would be helper, ping @rakuco. :)

GitHub Notification of comment by Honry
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 27 August 2018 05:27:59 UTC