- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:11:36 -0700
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fLoHFSQZYVfPyXD1NB7j9Fk1EdV2qO2WPUzv92Hq-3zA@mail.gmail.com>
were you able to incorporate the improvements I suggested at [1]? [1] https://github.com/darobin/webidl.js/pull/16 On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > as you know, one of the tools that we have for testing is idlharness. What > it does is basically that it processes some WebIDL, is given some objects > that correspond to it, and it tests them for a bunch of pesky aspects that > one should not have to test by hand. > > One of the issues with idlharness is that it has long been based on > webidl.js which was a quick and dirty WebIDL parser that I'd written > because I needed it for a project that petered out. This meant that it > increasingly didn't support newer constructs in WebIDL that are now in > common use. > > In order to remedy this, I have now made an updated version of idlharness > that uses webidl2.js, a much better parser that is believed to be rather > complete and correct (at least, it tests well against the WebIDL tests that > we have). The newer webidl2.js does bring as much backwards compatibility > with webidl.js as possible, but in a number of cases that simply wasn't > possible (because WebIDL has changed too much to fit well into the previous > model, and also because mistakes were made with it). > > You can find the updated version of idlharness in this branch: > > https://github.com/w3c/**testharness.js/tree/webidl2<https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/tree/webidl2> > > The reason I'm prodding you is that idlharness, ironically enough, does > not have a test suite. Because of that, I can't be entirely comfortable > that the updated version works well and doesn't break existing usage. I've > tested it with some existing content (e.g. http://berjon.com/tmp/geotest/* > *) but that's no guarantee. > > So if you've been using idlharness, I'd like to hear about it. If you > could give the new version a ride to see if you get the same results it'd > be lovely. Once I hear back from enough people that it works (or if no one > says anything) I'll merge the changes to the master branch. > > Thanks! > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 18:12:25 UTC