- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:31:48 +0100
- To: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-test-infra <public-test-infra@w3.org>
Hi all, as you know, one of the tools that we have for testing is idlharness. What it does is basically that it processes some WebIDL, is given some objects that correspond to it, and it tests them for a bunch of pesky aspects that one should not have to test by hand. One of the issues with idlharness is that it has long been based on webidl.js which was a quick and dirty WebIDL parser that I'd written because I needed it for a project that petered out. This meant that it increasingly didn't support newer constructs in WebIDL that are now in common use. In order to remedy this, I have now made an updated version of idlharness that uses webidl2.js, a much better parser that is believed to be rather complete and correct (at least, it tests well against the WebIDL tests that we have). The newer webidl2.js does bring as much backwards compatibility with webidl.js as possible, but in a number of cases that simply wasn't possible (because WebIDL has changed too much to fit well into the previous model, and also because mistakes were made with it). You can find the updated version of idlharness in this branch: https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/tree/webidl2 The reason I'm prodding you is that idlharness, ironically enough, does not have a test suite. Because of that, I can't be entirely comfortable that the updated version works well and doesn't break existing usage. I've tested it with some existing content (e.g. http://berjon.com/tmp/geotest/) but that's no guarantee. So if you've been using idlharness, I'd like to hear about it. If you could give the new version a ride to see if you get the same results it'd be lovely. Once I hear back from enough people that it works (or if no one says anything) I'll merge the changes to the master branch. Thanks! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 16:31:59 UTC