- From: Pan Deng <pan.pdeng6@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:01:28 +0800
- To: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
- Cc: James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+Ro6hw9Mh+nmnNbhWYxnqAy+spDmQr=i=Lrw_CTcEbawdj+GA@mail.gmail.com>
2013/1/24 Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> > I reviewed these tests cases. It seems like these tests were targeting > an older version of the spec, as most of the tests are hitting script > errors in IE10 trying to call window.performance.mark() and > window.performance.measure(). These functions were removed from the User > Timing spec prior to taking the spec to CR.**** > > ** > > *>> Do you mean getMarks() and getMeasures()? These obsolete methods are > not covered in those test cases. > >> The cases were not targeting older version spec although submitted 3 > months ago. In IE10, the script error happens in prefix-handling because of > other compatibility problem, it need a fix.* > > ** > > I also noticed that there is a test testing mark(“secureConnectionStart”), > even though secureConnectionStart is an optional attribute in Navigation > Timing.**** > > *>> Good point! > >> As secureConnectionStart is optional, I think it is better to check if > "secureConnectionStart" an attribute in performance.timing first, if true, > exception is expected when mark("secureConnectionStart"). how do you think > of it?* > > ** > > Seeing that most of these tests overlap with the already approved User > Timing tests, http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/UserTiming/, I > don’t think we’ll need to make any updates here though.**** > > *>> I see cases in > http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/UserTiming/, they are well > written. > >> In addition, as markName for performance.mark() and measureName for > performance.measure() is defined non-optional in spec, I think exception > test for the call performance.mark() and measure() without any parameter > should be covered (they are available in > http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Intel/user-timing/)* > > how do you think of above? Follow-up cases can be prepared next week. > thanks > ** ** > > *From:* James Simonsen [mailto:simonjam@chromium.org] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:51 AM > *To:* public-web-perf > *Subject:* [User Timing] New test cases**** > > ** ** > > Hi all,**** > > ** ** > > I've uploaded the User Timing tests written by Pan Deng from Intel. You > can find them here:**** > > ** ** > > http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/submission/Intel/user-timing/**** > > ** ** > > Please take a look!**** > > ** ** > > James**** >
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 10:02:03 UTC