RE: RfR: Progress Events Test Cases; deadline January 28

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jungkee Song [mailto:jungkee.song@samsung.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:25 PM
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:33 AM
> 
> > test 6 - passes Opera and FF and fails Chrome. Not clear where the
> > "Interface objects propoerties should not be Enumerable" requirement
> > is defined.


By the definition of Interface and interface object in WebIDL, it is
described that the interface has the attributes { [[Writable]]: true,
[[Enumerable]]: false, [[Configurable]]: true } on the ECMAScript global
object.

Hence, test 6 is valid as it is for [[Enumerable]]: false. Failure on Chrome
should be considered as a bug.


> >
> >
> > test 7 - passed Opera and FF and fails Chrome
> >

Likewise, test 7 is for [[Configurable]]: true and thus valid. Failure on
Chrome should be considered as a bug.


> > tests 3,4,5 - none of the browsers pass this test but it's not really
> > clear to me what specific requirements from the spec are being tested
> > so at a minimum, some context for these tests should be added.
> >
> 
> I think these assertions are valid in testing the enumerability and
> configurability of each of the attribute of ProgressEvent. Hence, I think
> they need to be treated as bugs but I also have a comment on this test
> case:
> 
> Ms2ger,
> 
> - This test case doesn't take an assertion for writable attribute. Should
> the desc.writable be true or false?
> - Doesn't the assertion on configurable have to be
> assert_equals(desc.configurable, false) ?
> where configurable is,
> true if and only if the type of this property descriptor may be changed
> and if the property may be deleted from the corresponding object.


This one is the only question left for me.

Ms2ger, 
Could you help?

> 
> Jungkee
> 
> >
> 
>

Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 10:47:14 UTC