- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:07:32 +0200
- To: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:59 AM, Dave Longley > On 09/04/2013 12:46 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > > On Sep 3, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Dave Longley wrote: > >> I'm currently working on it with jsonld.js. Unfortunately, I'll only > >> be able to do this easily in node.js. The phantomJS (headless browser) > >> can't fetch documents very easily; it would be nice if we could specify > >> something in the manifest that would allow the test application to > >> "mock" fetch documents. What's the problem? Does neither of the various flags like --local-to-remote-url-access=true --web-security=false solve the problems you are having? Actually I'm wondering why you submit two implementation reports for the same code? The only difference is the runtime AFAICT. > > Yes, I was thinking that too, however, you end up duplicating a lot > > of apache config, and you'd need to be sure that a test runner > > accurately represented it. However, we could figure out a way to > > express the parameters in the manifest with some additional option > > properties. > > Yeah, I think it's worth expressing it in the manifest to make it easier > on anyone with a test environment that can't necessarily hit the > json-ld.org server (or fetch any docs for that matter). I think the whole purpose of these tests is to test that an implementation is capable of making real network requests. As such, I think mocking them wouldn't be a good idea. In practice, you probably run the code in an environment where it doesn't have network access, but nevertheless it MUST be able to perform those requests. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 10:08:04 UTC