W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > August 2015

RE: [battery] getBattery() test case feedback

From: Zhang, Zhiqiang <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 06:55:22 +0000
To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
CC: W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0EA8FB2070816C499E0A50AC1B0B5C161E0C31E9@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
+ James in this thread.

> From: Kostiainen, Anssi
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 2:32 PM
> 
> > On 28 Aug 2015, at 09:17, Zhang, Zhiqiang <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
> > Thanks for the info.
> >
> >> From: Kostiainen, Anssi
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:33 PM

> >> Mozilla is revising its Battery Status API implementation to match
> >> the latest spec and provided some feedback re the test case for
> >> getBattery() in Bugzilla [1].
> >
> > I've caught an issue report at
> > https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/issues/2104
> 
> Thanks for the point, I had missed this one.
> 
> >> Do you have a suggestion how to improve that test case?
> >
> > But I have no idea at current being how to improve that test.
> 
> I'm wondering whether the testharness.js built-in promise_*() are of any
> help or whether we'd need to patch testharness.js to add support. I'd guess
> testharness.js should be able to properly test functions that return promises.
> jgraham who's the original author of testharness.js was on the Moz bug,
> perhaps he knows.

Hmm, seems this is a problem of idlharness.js rather than testharness.js, 
as the idlharness.js hasn't considered the Promise related tech.

Thanks,
Zhiqiang

> >> [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1050749#c37
> >> [2] http://w3c-test.org/battery-status/battery-interface.html
Received on Friday, 28 August 2015 06:56:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:06 UTC