- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:44:08 -0400
- To: Nic Jansma <Nic.Jansma@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
[corrected James email address] On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 02:08 +0000, Nic Jansma wrote: > fyi: > There appears to be a different version of testharness.js on > test.w3.org vs. w3c-test.org. The test.w3.org version seems to be > updated to the latest Mercurial version, while w3c-test.org is using a > version from 25-Jan-2011. > > http://test.w3.org/resources/testharness.js > > http://w3c-test.org/resources/testharness.js We found the problem on our end. http://w3c-test.org/resources/testharness.js is the one to use and will always represent the tip. > However, the /webperf/ folder on both sites appears to be current to > our latest Mercurial changes. The hooks for the html repository are different from the ones in /webperf. > It appears that a recent update to testharness.js (and thus published > on test.w3.org) may be causing some issues with some of our tests. It > looks like asserts() that happen after the load handler for the page > are not getting registered in the summary of Pass/Fail results. > > > For example, test.w3.org with the new changes shows "Found 0 tests" in > IE and Chrome while the older version on w3c-test.org works properly > and shows all of the Pass/Fail results: > > http://test.w3.org/webperf/tests/approved/test_navigate_within_document.htm > > http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/test_navigate_within_document.htm I'm looking at this one now with James, Philippe
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2011 15:44:16 UTC