- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:05:57 +0200
- To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: "public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org" <public-webapps-testsuite@w3.org>
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:47:47 +0200, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
wrote:
> On 8/13/13 10:08 AM, ext Simon Pieters wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:47:54 +0200, Arthur Barstow
>> <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Simon - but isn't that new line commented-out? [Sorry for my JS
>>> newbie Qs]
>>
>> The test is doing a non-obvious trick. It's commented out from the
>> initial HTML page load. However, the test then opens a worker with the
>> same URL (modulo the fragment), which means that the same source gets
>> interpreted as javascript by the worker. In javascript, <!-- is a line
>> comment (like //), so the code at the top gets executed, while the part
>> between /* ... */ is ignored.
>>
>> I was the one who came up with and started using the above trick, so
>> sorry for causing confusion. :-)
>
> Wow ;-).
>
> It seems like this test is more complicated than it needs to be to just
> test the one line of the spec Odin referenced.
Odin didn't reference just that, he also referenced:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:56:09 +0200, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>
wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-eventsource-20121211/#dom-eventsource
> Algorithm step 7. (the CORS part)
which is the primary thing it's testing. The other thing he referenced was
just explaining what part of the spec justified having an
EventSource-in-workers test at all.
> For starters, it seems like the fail function only needs to be called
> once. Additionally, it seems like it would be a bit clearer if the URL
> was actually valid and the test.step could be be crafted so it just
> needs to make a single check.
>
> As is, this test seems to just re{test,state} that Chrome doesn't
> properly handle invalid URLs in the EventSource constructor which
> appears to be already tested by eventsource-constructor-url-bogus.htm.
The URLs in this test aren't invalid, they just fail the CORS check. So
it's not the same.
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 15:01:03 UTC