Re: New Resource and User Timing Test Cases

The User Timing tests look fine.

The Resource Timing test is okay, but insufficient. There are a ton of
obscure ways to initiate loads. We have a bunch of cases. I'll upload them,
though they're not as easy to read. Also, I'd prefer it not use sync XHR.
Nobody should. Ever.

James


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  Boris, James, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Can one of you review the Resource and User Timing test cases? I’d like to
> move them from the submitted folder to the approved folder if there are no
> issues with the tests.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Jatinder****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jatinder Mann
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:02 PM
> *To:* public-web-perf@w3.org
> *Subject:* New Resource and User Timing Test Cases****
>
> ** **
>
> I have submitted new Resource and User Timing test cases and have updated
> the Page Visibility test cases to fix some bugs. Please review these test
> cases and provide feedback.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Resource Timing Test Cases:*
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/ResourceTiming/test_resource_timing.htm
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> IE10 passes all test cases. ****
>
> ** **
>
> *User Timing Test Cases:*
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/UserTiming/test_user_timing_clear_marks.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/UserTiming/test_user_timing_clear_measures.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/UserTiming/test_user_timing_exists.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/UserTiming/test_user_timing_mark.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/UserTiming/test_user_timing_mark_exceptions.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/UserTiming/test_user_timing_measure.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/UserTiming/test_user_timing_measure_exceptions.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/UserTiming/test_user_timing_measure_navigation_timing.htm
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> IE10 passes all tests cases.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Page Visibility Test Cases:*
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/PageVisibility/test_attributes_exist.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/PageVisibility/test_child_document.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/PageVisibility/test_default_view.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/PageVisibility/test_minimize.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/PageVisibility/test_read_only.htm
> ****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Microsoft/PageVisibility/test_tab_state_change.htm
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> IE10 passes all test cases. Firefox and Chrome fail these test cases, but
> I believe it’s because they have a prefixed implementation.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Jatinder****
>
> ** **
>