Re: Updated idlharness.js

I think it would be good to announce and see if we can get some more people involved in our group. It might also serve as a barometer to check people's interest in what we are trying to achieve.   

--  
Marcos Caceres


On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Clint Hill wrote:

> Sorry.  
>  
> WebApps WG and public-test-infra
>  
>  
> From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com (mailto:francois.remy.dev@outlook.com)>
> Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:09 PM
> To: "public-nextweb@w3.org (mailto:public-nextweb@w3.org)" <public-nextweb@w3.org (mailto:public-nextweb@w3.org)>, Clint Hill <clint.hill@gmail.com (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (mailto: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 Thursday, 24 January 2013 16:38:25 UTC