W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: ACTION-108: Send a todo list re testing that needs to be done (Pointer Events Working Group)

From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:56:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO8i3if116yPtJKC=5zJPeXCKANuA2b4-478Nwsvh-d63Bh4rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Cc: Pointer Events Working Group <public-pointer-events@w3.org>
Some of these did get covered in tests that made it to master already. I've
submitted https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1112 and
https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/1113 for the remaining
assertions that were covered in TTWF.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 6/13/14 9:17 PM, Scott González wrote:
>
>> I believe the following is the full list of assertions from the TTWF
>> event that haven't been already implemented in web-platform-tests.
>>
>> TA 3.1, 3.2 - pointerup properties matching pointerdown properties
>> https://github.com/dmethvin/pointerevents-test/blob/
>> 6d1a680451dcacb23ccfeb907c024a124ab3a8ec/pointerup.html#L133
>> We do have the equivalent tests for pointermove (5.1, 5.2) in
>> pointerevent_pointermove_isprimary_same_as_pointerdown.html
>>
>
> What's the plan/recommendation? Are you or Dave going to resubmit the test
> file or update one of the merged files?
>
>
>  TA 12.1 - constructor assertions
>> https://github.com/dmethvin/pointerevents-test/blob/
>> master/constructor.html
>>
>
> What's the plan here? Do we need someone to review this?
>
>
>  There are more extensive pointerleave tests with deeply nested elements,
>> but I'm not sure if this is necessary:
>> https://github.com/dmethvin/pointerevents-test/blob/
>> master/pointerenterleave-continuous.html
>>
>
> Perhaps one option for tests like these is to tag them with something like
> `stress test` and thus distinguish it as something that isn't strictly need
> to "test the Candidate Recommendation". WDYT?
>
>
>
>  gotpointercapture and lostpointercapture events should be fired
>> asynchronously. There is no Test Assertion for this, but this is covered by
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24971
>> gotpointercapture: https://github.com/dmethvin/pointerevents-test/blob/
>> 6d1a680451dcacb23ccfeb907c024a124ab3a8ec/pointercaptureevents.html#L106
>> lostpointercapture: https://github.com/dmethvin/pointerevents-test/blob/
>> 6d1a680451dcacb23ccfeb907c024a124ab3a8ec/pointercaptureevents.html#L129
>>
>
> So it sounds like we need someone to review this and when all issues are
> resolved to merge it?
>
> -Thanks, Art
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 19:56:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:10 UTC