RE: Call for Review: Web IDL Testing document

> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU]
> On 12/10/12 9:19 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > * Are the assertions that are already defined (see Section 3 in the
> > Testing document), valid?
> A big caveat: Testing objects that are not actually using WebIDL is
> pointless for conformance criteria purposes.  At least in Gecko's case,
> some objects are using WebIDL already, some are not yet; a number of the
> ones the assertion tests suggest using so far are not.  So we may end up
> with test passes on the latter objects that have nothing to do with
> WebIDL.  It's worth checking with other UAs what their situation is when
> picking the sets of objects to test....
> "Objects should have an internal prototype of Object.prototype unless
> otherwise noted" is not valid as written.  In particular,
> Object.getPrototypeOf(Element.prototype) == Node.prototype.  The only
> objects WebIDL really defines whose protos are Object.prototype should
> be interface objects for callback interfaces and prototype objects for
> interfaces which have no ancestor interface, I think.
> "objects defined to be function objects have an internal prototype of
> Function.prototype" is fine as written, but I recommend testing a few
> interface objects as well, including at least one interface object for
> an interface with ancestors.  XMLHttpRequest and EventTarget are good
> candidates.
> "JavaScript function returning a value for a void function is discarded"
> the note about handleEvent is false.  The return value of functions set
> as an event handler is used, but the return value of functions added via
> addEventListener is in fact ignored in UAs last I checked.
> The rest look ok to me.
> It might be good to try to split the spec into pieces and hand the
> pieces out to people to work on or something...

Not a bad idea. Boris, would you like to help?

Received on Monday, 10 December 2012 20:30:31 UTC