Re: Refactoring SharedWorkers out of Web Workers W3C spec

On 16/12/13 16:43, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 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?

No, this is based on a new-ish tool that itself depends on the 
self-hosted-tests changes [1].

If Travis can make the results available in the same JSON format the 
tool uses then we can incorporate them directly; having a common, 
machine-writable format is the essential point of this work. However I 
would suggest that he waits until we fix the broken tests and land the 
self-hosted-tests changes and test runner / report generator. If people 
are interesting in speeding this process up, the most valuable thing 
they can do is help finish the review at [1].

[1] https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/368

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 17:54:22 UTC