Re: Updated idlharness.js

Sorry. 

WebApps WG and public-test-infra


From:  François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date:  Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:09 PM
To:  "public-nextweb@w3.org" <public-nextweb@w3.org>, Clint Hill
<clint.hill@gmail.com>
Subject:  RE: Updated idlharness.js

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
>