Re: RfC: WebApps Testing Process

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, Garrett Smith wrote:

> On 4/7/11, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I don't have time for this. Ask on comp.lang.javascript.
>>
>> Nor do I have time to research the reasoning that underlies your\
> Uh oh. So the explanations weren't enough, got it, so I tried to head
> you off in the right direction.
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/3550757564c1f24a?hl=tk#
> I've outlined some of the fundamental problems I saw in the code. I
> already made the NUnit suggestion on this list (or was it the public
> webapps?)

Thanks for soliciting wider review. Do you plan to summarise feedback from 
that list here? I think it is quite likely that I will unintentionally 
forget to check back and see if there are any useful suggestions.

On the subject of assert_NaN; I am quite happy to add that for the since 
being explicit is generally good. However assert_equals always failing 
when passed NaN would be a likely source of bugs. The two reasonable 
choices seem to be "throw" or "just work". I am not sure what is wrong 
with "just work". In particular I think it is quite obvious to anyone 
reading what assert_equals(NaN, something) does. Yes, it depends on a 
notion of equality that is a little different from the two notions of 
equality exposed by the ECMAScript == and === operators. On the other 
hand, the ES5 internal SameValue algorithm treats NaNs as equal so it is 
clearly not a totally alien concept.