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: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 06:48:22 -0400
Message-ID: <5582A1F6.6030001@gmail.com>
To: David Burns <dburns@mozilla.com>
CC: Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "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>, John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
On 6/17/15 7:51 PM, David Burns wrote:
> When the low level actions was written when Chrome had said that they 
> were not going to Pointer Events so they are in need of rewrite. It 
> also needs a rewrite for other reasons so let me know what changes you 
> would like to have and I will try to accomodate them. I will be 
> tackling this soon.

Thanks David!

If someone has input, do you prefer a Bugzilla bug [B], a GG Issue [GH], 
e-mail to [p-b-t-t], reply to this thread, and/or something else? And if 
there is a deadline, please let us know.

-Thanks, ArtB

[B] 
<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?comment=&blocked=20860&short_desc=[WebDriver%20Spec]%3A%20&product=Browser%20Test%2FTools%20WG&component=WebDriver>
[GH] <https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/issues>
[p-b-t-t] 
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-browser-tools-testing/>


>
> On 17 June 2015 at 18:08, Jacob Rossi <Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com 
> <mailto:Jacob.Rossi@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:10 AM, James Graham
>     <james@hoppipolla.co.uk <mailto: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 Thursday, 18 June 2015 10:48:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 18 June 2015 10:48:53 UTC