- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:39:21 +0000
- To: "Zhang, Zhiqiang" <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
- CC: W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
> On 29 Jan 2016, at 01:01, Zhang, Zhiqiang <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com> wrote: [...] > Re-read the specification, I think both the 2 implementations are compliant with specification, especially for the note "the definition of how often the chargingtimechange, dischargingtimechange, and levelchange events are fired is left to the implementation." Then we need to revise the tests. > > What do you think? Given the frequency is an implementation detail on purpose, it is indeed hard to create tests for these cases as such that they're always conclusive. Perhaps the affected tests could be revised with a note that given the frequency is an implementation detail, running the tests may take a very long time (or technically, forever), since it is up to the implementation when to fire the events. How many test failures we currently have due to this behaviour? Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2016 14:39:54 UTC