- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 09:17:55 -0400
- To: public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Hi All - on March 31 I submitted a rough draft proposal to the WebApps WG related to testing processes [1]. That proposal includes re-using testharness.js which is used by at least the HTML WG and Web Performance WG. Garrett Smith submitted some comments about this harness and those comments are below. Going forward, please use the following mail list for testharness.js discussions: public-test-infra@w3.org http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/ Bugs for this harness should be submitted to the "Testing" product and "testharness.js" component: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/describecomponents.cgi?product=Testing James Graham (author of testharness.js) is default assignee of this component. -Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/1086.html -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: RfC: WebApps Testing Process Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:45:02 -0700 From: ext Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com> To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org> On 3/31/11, Arthur Barstow<art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > 4. http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Harness - short intro to the > harness which is a reuse of the one used by the HTML WG (created and > maintained by James Graham) I'd rather see the `format_value` function broken up. It makes non-standard expectations of host objects (`val`) and that there is a global `Node` object. Which standard requires that? Instead of making decisions based on what is on the object's prototype chain, It is safer to make a more direct inference. However, taking a step back, I want to know why the function is so generalized. I see that the function `format_value` is called by `assert_equals` and by itself, recursively. It is expected to take all of number, string, and Node because assert_equals pushes down the requirement to be generalized. I would rather see this functionality broken up so that assertions about Node objects are passed Nodes, and then the formatting can be in format_node, or stringify_node, etc. And it can get worse when you have more object types or subtypes, such as any of the various DOM collections. I've attacked this `assert_*` multiplicity variance by using what is called "constraints" in NUnit. Essentially, "encapsulate the parts that vary. In javascript, a constraint can be written very easily as a function. That will also allow for cleanup of the messiness of `-0` and NaN's and their accompanying obsolete comments.
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 13:21:31 UTC