- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:43:50 -0500
- To: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- CC: public-webapps@w3.org
On 12/16/13 11:20 AM, ext James Graham wrote: > On 12/12/13 16:20, James Graham wrote: >> On 12/12/13 15:13, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >>> On 12/11/13 8:42 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>>> [IR] <http://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/Interop/WebWorkers> >>> >>> Looking at this link, there are passes marked for obviously incorrect >>> tests (e.g. see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24077 >>> which says that >>> http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/master/workers/interfaces/DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope/postMessage/second-argument-null.html >>> >>> >>> should fail in any conformant UA, but it's marked as passing in Opera >>> and Chrome. >>> >>> So presumably we will need to rerun the tests in all UAs again once all >>> the bugs have been fixed, yes? >> >> Yes. I have found another couple of trivial bugs in the tests which I >> will fix up. I will also have a got at fixing Ms2ger's test runner to >> work in a better way, sort out some way to automate the visual output, >> and hopefully we can generate a new implementation report with minimal >> effort. > > So, I made a sample implementation report [1] using an in-browser test > runner based on Ms2ger's earlier work (see public-test-infra for more > details). The browsers are those that happened to be on my computer. I > don't intend for anyone to take these results as authoritative, and > more work is needed, but it is much better than editing a wiki. And > has revealed yet more bugs in the tests. > > In time we can use this approach in collaboration with vendors to > fully automate generating implementation reports. > > [1] http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/workers.html James - this is excellent! Did you run the tests via <http://www.w3c-test.org/testrunner/workers/>? What would it take to include Travis's IE results? -Thanks, ArtB
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 16:52:54 UTC