- 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