- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:01:35 -0400
- To: Tobin Titus <tobint@microsoft.com>
- Cc: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
We don't have many tests for RAF due to the nature of the functionality but I came with additional very basic tests for it: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/931 If someone can look at the pull request and give a +1 here on in critic, that would be appreciated. In addition, I wrote a iframe[style=display:none] test to match the definition for hidden per Page Visibility 2 but found out that iframe.contentDocument.hidden is still false however, despite PV2 suggesting the following: [[ The document or one of its parent elements is styled so that it is hidden, such as with "display:none", "visibility:hidden", or "opacity:0". ]] As such, the implementations for RAF do match Page Visibility 1 as far as I can tell. Philippe On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 18:28 +0000, Tobin Titus wrote: > Philippe and I reviewed the test in question and it does make assumptions that are not in the spec. I wasn't on this team when the test was made, but I believe it was made so that you could actually test the timings in a known environment. In order to test that RAF was called at the proper callback frequency, you needed to make an assumption about the monitor frequency. > > Modifying your environment would require that the test be updated as well. Clearly, that's not optimal. We were fine with dropping the test in order to unblock the spec. > > -TT >
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 21:01:42 UTC