W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Request for Review: single-touch tests; deadline Sept 24

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:01:23 +0300
Message-ID: <50609FF3.4070807@helsinki.fi>
To: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Chan Cathy (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com>, "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
On 09/24/2012 05:32 AM, Rick Byers wrote:
> This looks great guys!  A few comments:
> 1. We still want some test that validates 'instanceof TouchList', right?  This represents a legitimate bug in WebKit, right?  Or is it OK for
> TouchList to not actually be a defined symbol?

Per the spec+Webidl global scope should have TouchList.
if ("TouchList" in window) {
} else {

> 2. I agree with Cathy that the large number of tests makes things a little unwieldy (eg. having 10+ 'Pass: touch point is a Touch object' makes the
> output pretty cluttered and hard to skim, similarly there's little value to repeating over and over that TouchList is missing identifiedTouch).  But I
> also don't think we want to combine all the checks into a single test case (since, as Cathy says, that'll cause errors - like WebKit's missing
> identifiedTouch - to halt the whole test).  Perhaps the best tradeoff here is to just test the properties of a given type once.  I.e. once we've
> verified one Touch object, it's really overkill to verify all the others (I think it's pretty unlikely, for example, that any implementation would
> have a 'screenX' on some Touch instances but not others).  Or maybe we put these behind an 'exhaustive mode' or something.
> Alternately, we could be a little fancier and get the best of both worlds by establishing a baseline for a Touch object once (with one test per
> property) - keeping track of which tests pass, and in subsequent tests just assert that all touches match the same baseline.  Let me know if this
> sounds worthwhile and I can code it up.
> 3. I added tests for some additional things that aren't currently covered by the test assertions:
>   * pageX/pageY is over the expected element (for all three event types)
>   * clientX/clientY is correct (give page co-ordinates and scroll position)
>       o note we should probably have the test initialize itself to non-zero scroll offsets - eg. I've seen several bugs in webkit implementation and
>         tests due to assuming scroll position is 0.
>   * screenX/screenY is consistent (within our ability to validate)
>   * no more than one touchstart is received
>   * createTouchList and createTouch work as defined
>       o Note that this uncovered a new bug in the WebKit implementation - as spec'd createTouchList is supposed to take an array of Touch objects, but
>         WebKit doesn't handle this - instead supporting a variable number of Touch arguments (as can be seen in the WebKit layout test for this API
>         <http://code.google.com/searchframe#OAMlx_jo-ck/src/content/test/data/layout_tests/LayoutTests/fast/events/touch/script-tests/document-create-touch-list.js&exact_package=chromium&q=createTouchList&type=cs&l=17>).
>           I've filed https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97418 against myself to track.
> I forked Art's version of the tests on gitHub here: https://github.com/RByers/WebEvents.  The additions above are here
> <https://github.com/RByers/WebEvents/commit/b2717c4925fc5f4a7724ad4e9e59be37d8276857#single-touch.html> and here
> <https://github.com/RByers/WebEvents/commit/dc21ef44950fe11f38d91a6b85195c43a3d7e8e5#single-touch.html>.  Art, if these look OK, do you want to pull
> them into your copy (or even have a single repo we all have permission to push to?)
> With these few additions, I think we've pretty thoroughly covered this simple single-touch scenario.  I can see a couple additional things we may want
> to test in this scenario:
>   * non-zero scroll offset (just add some padding to the top, bottom and probably left, then have JS set the scroll position so the page looks the
>     same as it does now by default).
>   * touch point actually lines up with the user's finger - eg. draw a small circle on touchstart/touchend for manual verification?
> I'm not sure if either is really worth it though - thoughts?  There are a couple other single-touch scenarios I could imagine testing (in separate
> test case files), eg:
>   * impact of preventDefault on scrolling
>       o I think many of the details here are implementation dependent though - eg. if PD isn't called, do you still get touchmove events during a
>         scroll operation?  It may be hard to write a useful test that isn't dependent on at least some implementation details.
>   * impact of preventDefault on synthesized mouse events
>       o but since these are optional - we'd probably technically have to make the test pass if no mouse events are detected at all
>   * generation of touchcancel
>       o this is so platform dependent that I'm not sure what we'd want here really - but a simple test that lets a user confirm it is possible to get
>         a touchcancel may be good.
>       o While playing with this in chrome, I discovered an interesting bug <http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=151871>where instead of
>         getting touchcancel, I can get into a nasty state where I get illegal events.
>   * interaction of touch events with iframes
>       o this is completely unspecified and up to the UA, right?
> I'm not sure which of these are actually worth testing though - thoughts?  I think I could whip up simple tests for the first three pretty quickly -
> but I'm not sure I could make the PD ones completely free of any implementation detail bias.
> And of course we have the mutl-touch scenarios to finish.
> Rick
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com <mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com>> wrote:
>     On 9/20/12 5:54 PM, Chan Cathy (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
>         First of all, +1 to continuing.
>         A couple comments on the type-checking code
>         1. I noticed you used
>                  assert_equals(Object.__prototype.toString.call(ev[__name]), "[object
>         TouchList]", name + " attribute of type TouchList");
>         instead of the I-assume-is-equivalent
>                  assert_true(ev[name] instanceof TouchList, name + " attribute of
>         type TouchList");
>         to check whether the said attribute is a TouchList object. While the latter
>         one results in the "Can't find variable: TouchList" error in WebKit [1], the
>         former works without a hitch. We might be inadvertently masking the WebKit
>         bug if we use the former syntax.
>     Thanks! I'll take a look at that.
>         (Note that with the type-checking code in
>         place, the line that initially exposed that WebKit bug (line 134 in your
>         version) can and should be removed, leaving the above line as the only place
>         which would expose the bug.)
>     And that too.
>         2. The number of test assertions exploded from 10+ to 80+
>     Yesterday I checked in an update that has many more tests ;-). I believe it tests all of the assertions 1.1.* through 1.5.* (although not
>     touchcancel). I haven't worked on the 1.6.* assertions but based on a very quick scan I think Matt already covered most if not all of them.
>     Anyhow, today, Matt ran my Sept 19 version on his implementation and got 240/240 Passes! My N9 passes 221 and the 19 failures are all related to
>     identfiedTouch.
>     Sangwhan - would you please run [1] against an Opera implementation?
>     Are there any other implementations besides Wk/Moz/O?
>         I recognize that this might well just be a matter of style and
>         personal preference.
>     Agreed and I'm somewhat indifferent although I don't have a problem with having a relatively strong correlation between asserts and tests (i.e.
>     lots of tests don't bother me).
>     -Art
>     [1] <https://raw.github.com/__AFBarstow/WebEvents/master/__single-touch.html <https://raw.github.com/AFBarstow/WebEvents/master/single-touch.html>>
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 18:02:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:54 UTC