- From: Zhang, Zhiqiang <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 06:19:58 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- CC: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi, Many thanks for this good catch and discussion. > From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu] > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 9:24 PM > On 6/3/16 3:32 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > > Right; based on Boris' analysis of that failure, I think we can make > > the case to the Director that it is not directly linked to this > > particular spec or the particular change we're bringing to it. > > While true, what you should do is have a test that actually tests what this test > was trying to test. That is, load a page that is NOT about:blank, then navigate > and check that the battery promise changed. Seems we get the same situation by loading a page that is in the same origin of the page to be set. See https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/issues/3107#issuecomment-223876291 > I expect all implementations will pass that, but it really should be checked in > the test suite. Both Chrome 51 and Firefox Nightly get failed for this test case. What's wrong here? Thanks, Zhiqiang
Received on Monday, 6 June 2016 06:20:25 UTC