- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:09:56 +0000
- To: "public-nextweb@w3.org" <public-nextweb@w3.org>, Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <DUB405-EAS408FB2F98E83FC77DF6FAFAA5150@phx.gbl>
On which mailing list was that? De : Clint Hill Envoyé : 23 janvier 2013 19:07 À : public-nextweb@w3.org Objet : FW: Updated idlharness.js Is this important to us to maybe announce on those lists our own work? On 1/23/13 9:31 AM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org> wrote: >Hi all, > >as you know, one of the tools that we have for testing is idlharness. >What it does is basically that it processes some WebIDL, is given some >objects that correspond to it, and it tests them for a bunch of pesky >aspects that one should not have to test by hand. > >One of the issues with idlharness is that it has long been based on >webidl.js which was a quick and dirty WebIDL parser that I'd written >because I needed it for a project that petered out. This meant that it >increasingly didn't support newer constructs in WebIDL that are now in >common use. > >In order to remedy this, I have now made an updated version of >idlharness that uses webidl2.js, a much better parser that is believed >to be rather complete and correct (at least, it tests well against the >WebIDL tests that we have). The newer webidl2.js does bring as much >backwards compatibility with webidl.js as possible, but in a number of >cases that simply wasn't possible (because WebIDL has changed too much >to fit well into the previous model, and also because mistakes were made >with it). > >You can find the updated version of idlharness in this branch: > > https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/tree/webidl2 > >The reason I'm prodding you is that idlharness, ironically enough, does >not have a test suite. Because of that, I can't be entirely comfortable >that the updated version works well and doesn't break existing usage. >I've tested it with some existing content (e.g. >http://berjon.com/tmp/geotest/) but that's no guarantee. > >So if you've been using idlharness, I'd like to hear about it. If you >could give the new version a ride to see if you get the same results >it'd be lovely. Once I hear back from enough people that it works (or if >no one says anything) I'll merge the changes to the master branch. > >Thanks! > >-- >Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon >
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 22:10:31 UTC