RE: the Web IDL dependency

On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 3:26 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:

> > Yes, I just checked it using ReSpec 3.1.49. The problem is still
> there.
> 
> Ok, I'll check as soon as I have a second.

Thanks!


> >> I don't have an ETA but updates to idlharness are being planned. In
> the
> >> meantime, what you should do is this:
> >>
> >>     . Use idlharness to test what it can test.
> >>     . Handcraft tests for what it does not yet support.
> >>     . Have the latter be reviewed by someone who has some authority
> in
> >> WebIDL.
> >
> > OK.. Honestly I have no idea what tests to write but I will try to
> figure
> > that out based on the existing tests. Do you know a "authority in
> WebIDL" we
> > could ask once we are ready?
> 
> I have as one of my tasks to look into how much work it would be to
> update idlharness for those extra features. The way to find which tests
> apply is to find out which conformance requirements are placed on that
> feature in WebIDL (both in the generic part and the JS binding - in
> fact especially the latter).
> 
> It's quite possible that once you know which tests are required,
> patching idlharness is the simplest thing to do.
> 
> In any case, I'd be happy to help. One plan we could use is that you
> figure out which tests are needed (possibly in prose) and we talk
> again.
> At that point, either I can easily add them to idlharness, or if that's
> not possible I can serve as your authority in reviewing them.

Sounds like a plan :-) I will see how far I get and will likely come back to
you next week.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2013 13:40:40 UTC