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

Re: [battery] getBattery() test case feedback

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:42:50 +0000
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "Zhang, Zhiqiang" <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
CC: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5B9D8D1C-4022-46AB-A814-34AFFE13BD26@intel.com>

> On 18 Nov 2015, at 13:13, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:
> On 28/08/2015 08:55, Zhang, Zhiqiang wrote:
>>> 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.
> I have a pending pull request on idlharness that I think would help  (at least a bit) with this:
> https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/pull/161

Dom - excellent, thank you!

My expectation is Zhiqiang will revise the Battery Status API test suite and provide feedback, when the testharness.js PR has landed.



>>>>> [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1050749#c37
>>>>> [2] http://w3c-test.org/battery-status/battery-interface.html
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2015 11:43:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:25 UTC