Re: Adding WebSocket and WebWorker test suites to testing framework

Hi Kris,

On 10/20/12 1:52 PM, ext Kris Krueger wrote:
> Thanks Mike!
>
> The only remaining issue seems to be a bug in the WebSocket server do to how Java handles unpaired surrogates.
> Which causes the second assert in the below tests to fail since the unpaired surrogate turns into a  '?' (3F Hex) evt.reason  and not the replacement character.
>
>  From Joakim's Pure Java Example -
> byte buf[] = "\ud807".getBytes(Charset.forName("UTF-8"));
>          System.out.println("hex = " + asHex(buf));
>
> hex = 3F
>
> http://www.w3c-test.org/webapps/WebSockets/tests/submissions/Microsoft/Close-reason-unpaired-surrogates.htm
> http://www.w3c-test.org/webapps/WebSockets/tests/submissions/Microsoft/Secure-Close-Reason-Unpaired-surrogates.htm

So, vis-à-vis the WebSockets RfR [1], what does the above server issue 
mean with respect to this review? Do you want the two tests above to be 
included in the review but we should expect them to fail because of the 
server issue?

And who has the `action` to fix the server bug?

-Thanks, Art

[1] 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps-testsuite/2012Oct/0007.html>


> -Kris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:03 AM
> To: Kris Krueger; Philippe Le Hégaret
> Cc: public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Adding WebSocket and WebWorker test suites to testing framework
>
> On 10/19/12 1:50 PM, ext Kris Krueger wrote:
>> That would be fine from my view - though the SSL cert has expired on the Jetty server.
>> Mike can you get this fixed?
>>
>> Without this the secure test fail.
> Thanks Mike!
>
>> Once this gets fixed I want to have a CFC to get all the web socket tests approved (ms2ger and Microsoft tests) since they have been updated to match the spec changes (unpaired surrogate and arraybufferview).
> PLH already added the Workers tests to the framework. PLH - would you please add the WebSocket tests to the framework?
>
> Kris - if you want to start a RfR/CfC for the Socket tests, that would be great (if you want me to do that, that's fine too).
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
>> -Kris
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:44 AM
>> To: Kris Krueger; Simon Pieters; public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org;
>> Ms2ger @ Mozilla
>> Subject: Adding WebSocket and WebWorker test suites to testing
>> framework
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> To facilitate automated running of the WebSocket and WebWorker tests, what do you think about adding them to the test framework now(ish):
>>
>>       <http://w3c-test.org/framework/app/suite>
>>
>> It appears there is a precedence to include various submissions as separate entries in the framework. For instance, there are currently three entries for IndexedDB: Microsoft, Ms2ger and Opera.
>>
>> Should all of the submissions be added to the framework separately i.e.
>> Workers/Microsoft, Workers/Opera, WebSockets/Microsoft and WebSockets/Ms2ger or should there first be some type of approval step first, such that there is a single entry for Workers and a single entry for WebSocket?
>>
>> Simon - FYI, PLH just reported (in #testing channel) Opera's Workers tests jsframework.js (instead of testharness.js).
>>
>> -Thanks, AB
>>
>>
>>

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 12:36:34 UTC