Re: UserAgent-specific files in Web Platform Tests

I would like to try formally specifying this for WebUSB as well.

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:05 PM Matt Giuca <mgiuca@chromium.org> wrote:

> I love this approach! Thanks for sharing and the write-up, Gio.
>
> > On the main repo that file would be empty but on the Chromium repo that
> file would have the necessary code to fake devices in Chromium.
>
> s/empty/stubs?
>
> I would definitely be up for converting my navigator.share
> <https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/webshare/share-success.html>
> and navigator.getInstalledRelatedApps
> <https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/installedapp/getinstalledrelatedapps.html> layout
> tests (which currently use an explicit mock of calls to the Mojo service)
> to a standard fake interface. Since my APIs are significantly simpler than
> Bluetooth, I might give it a shot and report back to this group. (Note
> though that they aren't standardised yet so I'm not sure if they'd be
> includeable in TestHarness. Still would serve as a useful case study.)
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 at 14:52 Giovanni Ortuño <ortuno@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Some context: We, the Web Bluetooth team, are looking into upstreaming our
> Chromium Layout Tests to Web Platform Tests. In order to test the Web
> Bluetooth API, we are introducing a Test API that accompanies the spec and
> allows our tests to fake Bluetooth Devices: Web Bluetooth Test
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Nhv_oVDCodd1pEH_jj9k8gF4rPGb_84VYaZ9IG8M_WY/edit#heading=h.ap8dnjfog4qc>
> .
>
> Parts of this API are implemented in JS. These parts are Chromium
> specific, e.g. how to talk with our IPC system, so it wouldn't make sense
> to include them as resources.
>
> To that extent, we would like to add a file called "web-bluetooth-test.js"
> which would be similar to "testharnessreport.js" to the testharness repo.
> On the main repo that file would be empty but on the Chromium repo that
> file would have the necessary code to fake devices in Chromium.
>
> There are many APIs that follow a similar pattern: they define a Test API
> surface that they use to fake behavior. Some examples include Geolocation
> <https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/geolocation-api/error.html?type=cs&q=mojo-helpers+file:%5Esrc/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/geolocation-api/+package:%5Echromium$&l=17>,
> Vibration
> <https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/vibration/vibration-durations.html?l=13>,
> NFC
> <https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/nfc/push.html?l=73>,
> Sensors
> <https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/sensor/accelerometer.html?l=45>,
> etc. So we think it would make sense to add a folder to include all of
> these Test APIs in, straw-man proposal: platform-fakes.
>
> ./
> ./testharness.js
> ./testharnessreport.js
> ./platform-fakes/web-bluetooth-test.js
> ./platform-fakes/geolocation-test.js
> ...
>
> Do y'all think this is a good approach?
>
> Let me know what you think,
>
> Gio
>
>