W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pointer-events@w3.org > April to June 2015

RE: Automating W3C Test Execution with WebDriver for Pointer Events

From: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:08:17 +0000
To: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
CC: "public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org" <public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org>, Pointer Events WG <public-pointer-events@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>, Art Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <DM2PR0301MB1213DD9B8A6D378C4B03CB3AFEA60@DM2PR0301MB1213.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:10 AM, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/06/15 17:46, Rick Byers wrote:
>> Thanks for kicking this off Doug,
>> To me the main issue to discuss is whether / how the WebDriver API
>> should be extended to support rich input support (it's really too
>> limited at the moment to be that useful for scenarios like pointer events).
>> I've started a blink-specific thread to discuss using WebDriver in our
>> tests here
>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#%21topic/blink-dev/0lXHWPF4lD4>.
> It would be nice if we could avoid fragmenting the discussion so early.
> So:
> * Using WebDriver for doing automated testing of (the content area of) browsers has always been part of the plan going forward.
> * How to do this in a really nice way, browser-independent, isn't clear. All the existing W3C test infrastructure is written in python, so adding a node dependency would be unwelcome. Making authors write tests spanning multiple files is also additional overhead compared to the state of the art in browser-internal test frameworks. 
>The best idea so far is to attempt an in-browser webdriver implementation that will allow calling out (via XHR or WS, or something) to an external server implementing a WebDriver client, that will inject the WebDriver commands and return the results. I'm sure this can work, but I am a little scared of the complexity.

This is more or less how some of our internal tests work today (though we have to use a different component than WebDriver since it doesn't yet satisfy all our input needs). So I wouldn't be too afraid. :-) 

> * The actions API is being specified to provide lower-level input support. You can see this in the current spec, but the actual text needs a bunch of work (more than any other part of the spec).

Here's the deep link for those that haven't seen it: https://w3c.github.io/webdriver/webdriver-spec.html#low-level-actions 

For the Pointer Events test suite, the pointerMove/Down/Up APIs would need to be extended with additional parameters to be able to control device properties like pressure, tilt, additional buttons, etc.
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2015 17:08:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 17 June 2015 17:08:48 UTC