08:40:12 RRSAgent has joined #coremob 08:40:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/03-coremob-irc 08:40:14 RRSAgent, make logs 25 08:40:14 Zakim has joined #coremob 08:40:16 Zakim, this will be 08:40:16 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 08:40:17 Meeting: Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Teleconference 08:40:17 Date: 03 October 2012 08:40:24 -> http://coremob.github.com/coremob-test-approach/ Tobie's Paper on Test Frameworks 08:40:30 s/Teleconference/Face to Face/ 08:40:35 Topic: Agenda 08:40:49 jo: to let Alan have some flexibility, we'll start with him 08:40:54 ... and then we'll discuss our agenda 08:41:04 Topic: XXX 08:41:10 alan: Alan, W3C 08:41:27 ... I came here today to talk about open platforms shared among mobile carriers 08:41:34 ... my main purpose is to attend apps world 08:41:43 JenLeong has joined #coremob 08:42:02 ... surprisingly yesterday, most people asked me how they could develop portable-html based apps without upsetting Apple/Google 08:42:14 ... and I responded that in fact, Apple and Google are both members of W3C 08:42:30 ... I'm responsible for recruiting for W3C 08:42:38 ... I'm a member of this CG 08:42:51 ... To make something into a standard, it will have to move into a WG 08:42:59 ... I spoke with GSMA yesterday afternoon 08:43:16 ... If you have a question about W3C, membership, who they are, who they aren't, please feel free to ask me 08:43:24 ... dom has more history, i'm the new kid on the block 08:43:27 present+ Bryan_Sullivan 08:43:28 jo: Thank you very much, alan 08:43:59 agenda: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/wiki/Meetings/F2F_2012-10-02_and_03/Agenda 08:44:14 present+ Alan_Bird 08:44:21 topic: Agenda 08:44:33 s/Topic: Agenda/Topic: Brief Agenda/ 08:44:46 jo: i'd like to try to come back to CoreMob 2012 mid afternoon 08:44:52 ... i'd like to do issue/action bashing 08:44:56 ... it's always fun, 08:45:07 ... the best part is when we say "oh, yeah, you did that, didn't you?" 08:45:15 http://coremob.github.com/coremob-test-approach/ 08:45:17 ... i hope everyone has read tobie's document 08:45:56 topic: Test Approach 08:46:09 ScribeNick: fantasai 08:46:16 i/Meeting:/Scribe: Josh_Soref/ 08:46:17 jet has joined #coremob 08:46:23 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:46:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/03-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref 08:46:29 RRSAgent, make logs public 08:46:51 dan has joined #coremob 08:47:14 http://coremob.github.com/coremob-test-approach/ 08:47:21 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:47:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/03-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref 08:47:39 wonsuk has joined #coremob 08:47:52 present+ Mounir_Lamouri 08:47:53 mattkelly has joined #coremob 08:48:02 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:48:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/03-coremob-minutes.html dom 08:48:12 jfmoy has joined #coremob 08:48:40 girlie_mac has joined #coremob 08:49:04 tobie: I was asked to do Robin's action, to discuss some options for building a test runner 08:49:10 tobie: So I wrote this draft paper over the last few weeks 08:49:25 tobie: I learned a lot in the process, so at least for me it was a useful exercise. Hope it's useful for you, too. 08:49:31 tobie: First thing I had to spend time on was terminology 08:49:34 s/XXX/W3C Thank You/ 08:49:40 Chair: Jo_Rabin 08:49:45 tobie: Mostly because JS library that W3C is using is referred all over the place 08:49:48 tobie: testharness.js 08:49:54 RRSAgent, draft minutes 08:49:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/03-coremob-minutes.html Josh_Soref 08:50:13 tobie: Given the structure of testing on the web in general, comes way after testing for other environments 08:50:19 tobie: Hard to understand how the pieces fit together 08:50:24 tobie: So I decided on some arbitrary wording 08:50:46 tobie: Any questions? 08:50:57 Present+ Wonsuk_Lee 08:51:07 fantasai: I read it, and the terminology doesn't work for reftests or self-describing tests 08:51:17 present+ Josh_Soref 08:51:17 present+ Elika_(fantasai) 08:51:17 present+ dom 08:51:17 present+ Jo_Rabin 08:51:17 present+ Bryan_Sullivan 08:51:17 present+ Tomomi_Imura_(girlie_mac) 08:51:20 present+ Matt_Kelly 08:51:21 present+ Shuhei_Hub 08:51:23 Present+ Wonsuk_Lee 08:51:25 present+ Gavin_Thomas 08:51:27 present+ Tobie_Langel 08:51:28 fantasai: e.g. says a "test" is a single JS function, which isn't true for CSS tests 08:51:29 present+ Jean-Francois_Moy 08:51:31 present+ Giridhar_Mandyam 08:51:33 present+ Jonathan_Watt 08:51:35 present+ Bryan_Sullivan 08:51:36 natasha has joined #coremob 08:51:37 present+ Markus_HP 08:51:39 present+ Jennifer_Leong 08:51:41 present+ Max_NTT 08:51:43 present+ Natasha_GSMA 08:51:46 present+ Robert_Shilston 08:51:53 present+ Alan_Bird 08:51:58 fantasai: and the test framework being defind as a JS program probably won't work for CS tests 08:52:01 s/CS/CSS? 08:52:02 s/CS/CSS/ 08:52:07 Alan has joined #coremob 08:52:20 s|s/CS/CSS?|| 08:52:50 tobie: So, there are 3 categories of tests 08:53:29 fantasai: testharness.js tests (automated JS) 08:53:36 fantasai: reftests (automated visual) 08:53:42 fantasai: self-describing tests (manual) 08:53:57 tobie: This document only discusses automated JS tests 08:54:23 dom: The terminology section seems to be very specific to what this group is doing, not general to W3C 08:54:31 max has joined #coremob 08:54:36 dom: e.g. a test being a single JS function is true of many W3C tests, but not all 08:54:58 dom: My question is whether you are trying to define these terms in the broader sense, or trying to focus on what's covered in the document 08:55:51 dom: So maybe you need a section that lists assumptions, scopes the document to what coremob will be testing 08:56:12 jo: Need to discuss that, e.g. seems premature to me to exclude non-automated testing 08:56:59 jo: So assumption to state for today, that we're only talking about automated testing 08:57:16 dom: What is the main goal for this? 08:57:35 dom: Is it for something like Ringmark, which is an impactful way to evaluate whether a browser conforms to things this group wants 08:57:45 q+ 08:57:46 dom: Or is it a generalized mobile test runner 08:58:03 tobie: It's a spectrum, e.g. Ringmark runs in under a minute 08:58:19 tobie: On the other hand, Jet was saying that e.g. Mozilla test suite takes 24 hours to run. 08:58:29 tobie: And maybe good to have a subset that runs in 15 minutes 08:58:47 jo: Maybe have a framework can do both 08:58:53 tobie: Not sure you can do that with the same software 08:59:01 tobie: I don't know what it is that vendors run for 24 hours 08:59:03 ack g 08:59:05 q+ 08:59:06 q+ 08:59:24 gmandyam: Talk about uploading results, if we're tyring to crowdsource, then doing something that doesn't involve an automated test framework, will be very diffficult 08:59:33 gmandyam: Some tests can be automated, some can't 08:59:49 gmandyam: For this we can say it's just existence tests, not functional tests 08:59:57 gmandyam: Anyone can download these tests and upload results 09:00:21 q? 09:00:28 tobie: Because testharness.js is asynchronous, and because test runners are async, it is possible to add human intervention in there, or even reftests 09:00:32 tobie: It needs to be plugged in 09:00:38 tobie: this paper does not concentrate on explaining that 09:00:53 gmandyam: If you're talking about professional testers ... 09:01:07 ack j 09:01:12 gmandyam: You have to minimize the intervention elements for common people 09:01:40 Josh_Soref: You don't have to eliminate human intervention to get results from untrained people 09:01:55 Josh_Soref: e.g. a lot of CSS tests are asking is this red, is it green, click the right button. Anyone can do that 09:02:00 mattkelly_ has joined #coremob 09:02:12 Josh_Soref: We can have a system where you can load up the results, and mostly be looking at cached results 09:02:18 Josh_Soref: And we can have a system where we tag things that are fast 09:02:31 Josh_Soref: Can say that this set of tests, run these tests quickly 09:02:44 Josh_Soref: It's certainly possible for tests to be self-instrumenting 09:02:50 Josh_Soref: And say which ones are fast/slow 09:02:52 a "lite" version of test would run in a split second, and the more consequential would require more time/intervention 09:02:58 q? 09:03:09 fantasai: you probably want to say which tests which you want to do for the fast run 09:03:14 ... you may have fast edge cases 09:03:30 ... but you want to define which core, possibly slow tests are key 09:03:47 tobie: it's pretty easy to decide which class of tests to run 09:03:55 Gavin_ has joined #coremob 09:04:03 jo: we agree that we need bundles of tests that can be runnable in different circumstances 09:04:08 ack r 09:04:10 q+ 09:04:28 rob_shilston: ... some basic things like position: fixed, where vnedors implement it on android phones 09:04:47 rob_shilston: We've not been able to determine that programmatically, whereas it's an important test that a human can determine 09:04:53 rob_shilston: Your'e talking about fast tests and slow tests 09:05:17 rob_shilston: Out of the last F2F, the ideal test framework would allow anyone to define a profile of tests to run 09:05:39 ack g 09:05:39 q+ 09:05:45 rob_shilston: There might be fast tests, or slow tests, or FB tests, or coremob tests, but the framework should be able to handle all these. 09:05:53 q+ tobie 09:06:28 gavin: We dived into this, wondering whether we have a clear view on the requirements and customers from the test results 09:06:35 gavin: That would help shape some of these topics 09:07:10 fantasai: your audience is web developers 09:07:13 ... and browser vendors 09:07:22 ... for the latter to compete 09:07:26 ... for the former to XXA 09:07:27 q? 09:07:35 s/XXA/see what's supported where/ 09:07:38 ack m 09:07:54 mattkelly_: One thing to keep in mind is the amount of effort it's going to take to do something like 100,000 test test suite 09:08:08 mattkelly_: A ringmark-style thing vs. 100,000-test test suite 09:08:23 mattkelly_: Want to create a framework that can be added to to create the latter eventually 09:08:40 mattkelly_: The nice thing about ringmark is that it got traction 09:08:49 mattkelly_: One ... 09:09:11 mattkelly_: A lot of people have been using it, fixing bugs in browsers, ealuating products, etc. 09:09:18 mattkelly_: I think we should start with something simple like ringmark 09:09:29 mattkelly_: and then go towards having a large test suite, with device certification 09:09:32 etc. 09:09:44 dom: what you're saying is the focus should be on browser vendors, and people selecting browsers? 09:09:46 Response to Rob - QuIC's Vellamo automated framework automates testing such as scrolling which could also be verified using human intervention. There are tests that are not capable of being automated, but we can provide a clear delineation in an automated framework (e.g. differentiating between existence tests and functional tests). 09:09:51 q? 09:10:10 mattkelly_: yes, I'd like the group to focus on taking developers priorities and informing browsers 09:10:19 mattkelly_: Going back to ringmark, we're already doing that 09:10:41 mattkelly_: we've added to other groups that build frameworks to determine what ppl can build on with different browsers 09:11:01 ack tob 09:11:04 jo: Informing devs is an essential part of the job, just not what we might do ourselves 09:11:20 tobie: Hearing lots of good ideas, great feedbac, but haven't heard yet of anyone willing to commit resources to work on this 09:11:32 tobie: Opening up the conversation and requirements to things liek crowdsourcing reftests, 09:11:36 tobie: I'm not going to do it 09:11:44 tobie: Whoever wants taht will have to step up and do it 09:11:48 https://www.zooniverse.org/ is great for science crowd-sourcing 09:11:53 slightly related 09:12:02 tobie: Given resources committed here to do this, most of the propositions I made are out-of-reach, and they're a 10th of what we're discussing right now 09:12:08 s/taht/that/ 09:12:10 tobie: So either we refocus discussion, or ppl step up and commit resources 09:12:22 q+ 09:12:32 crowd-sourcing the analysis of science data (e.g astronomy) 09:12:34 RRSAgent, make minutes 09:12:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/03-coremob-minutes.html MikeSmith 09:12:56 dom: hearing that we should start simple, automatable, leave more complex stuff for later 09:13:47 fantasai: That works for other technologies, but not for CSS. Anything you can test via JS for CSS will be limited and not really testing the layout 09:13:49 q+ tobie 09:14:00 dom: Would be limited ot existence tests. 09:14:18 jo: First we need a formal statement of requirements that are in-scope for the charter 09:14:35 jo: Second is architecture that matches the requirements, but will not be implemented in full yet due to resources 09:14:41 jo: Third is something that works, soon 09:15:04 if you could automate the testing, record the results and then have the "crowd" analyze it and report the result in an automated fashion 09:15:04 gavin: I can take an action to draft what I think the requirements should be 09:15:05 q? 09:15:10 ack G 09:15:19 gavin: I think our role is to apply from structure to this topic 09:15:19 ACTION: Gavin to start a draft of requirements of what our testing efforts should be 09:15:19 Created ACTION-56 - Start a draft of requirements of what our testing efforts should be [on Gavin Thomas - due 2012-10-10]. 09:15:43 gavin: We should be discussing the structure, and figure out [..] then resources will flow 09:15:47 gavin: Requirements need to be real 09:16:22 gavin: If this isn't the group that funds 100,00 tests, suppose they exist somewhere and we just need to find them and run them 09:16:25 ... 09:16:42 gavin: There's an assumption that this group will create a technical framework that will handle all this 09:16:46 gavin: Not sure tha'ts needed 09:17:04 gavin: Would love to see a table of all the features in coremob, does a test for this exist? 09:17:08 q? 09:17:13 ack t 09:17:16 tobie: This is my assumption of the requirements 09:17:39 fantasai: i'd like to raise an issue 09:17:40 q+ 09:18:01 ... existing ringmark sometimes tests for existence of features 09:18:10 ... but not correctness 09:18:15 ... we've had issues with ACID 09:18:18 ... and with other tests 09:18:34 ack m 09:18:39 .. where people do a half assed implementation just to satisfy the test 09:18:43 s/../.../ 09:18:58 mattkelly_: we have limited resources at Facebook 09:19:06 ... it's why we open sourced ringmark 09:19:14 q- 09:19:22 ... and contributed it to w3 09:19:29 ... hoping that people would contribute to the tests 09:19:40 jo: i'm hearing css can't be tested 09:19:48 fantasai: it can be, but not with javascript 09:20:03 jo: i'm hearing the framework needs to go beyond existence tests 09:20:19 q? 09:20:22 fantasai: you can't use the framework here to do it 09:20:30 tobie: when you talk about being able to automate ref tests 09:20:36 ... it has hardware constraints 09:20:46 ... i can't go to an arbitrary site 09:20:55 fantasai: you need something outside the browser 09:21:06 fantasai: it can be automated 09:21:15 tobie: there are two categories 09:21:23 q? 09:21:26 ... automated within the browser, automated outside the browser 09:21:39 ... it seems it might be better not to test css at all than to test it 09:22:02 ... since we're focusing on the former, not the latter here 09:22:20 tobie: There are requirements that were expressed i nthe charter, which was to have a test suite for the coremob spec 09:22:24 fantasai, some CSS can be automatically tested beyond existence, I would think; like you can check that settings a CSS rule does affect the right DOM properties (which could reasonably assumed to directly reflect how the browser would render the DOM) 09:22:27 tobie: Implicitly, this test suite uses testharness.js 09:22:35 s/reasonably/reasonably be/ 09:23:04 tobie: And then there's a bunch of nice-to-haves, that came up at the lsat F2F, which are 1. being able to run non-W3C tests 09:23:12 tobie: we could do the shim ourselves 09:23:29 tobie: otherwise, all the architecures I'm suggesting make it possible for a third party to write a shim 09:23:29 max has joined #coremob 09:24:26 sweet :) 09:24:33 dom, you can test the cascade and parsing that way, sure, but not layout and rendering which is the most significant part of the implementation 09:25:01 tobie: Run the test suite in a closed environment, e.g. if a carrier wants to test a non-released device -- internal QA 09:25:43 dom, as well, CSS has a number of implementations that don't support JS, so we wouldn't want to encourage JS tests over reftests, because that excludes those clients from being able to use those tests 09:26:12 fantasai, right re JS, but I think the focus of this group is very much on JS-enabled implementations 09:26:17 q? 09:26:39 dom, which is fine, but doesn't enable sharing tests with the CSSWG so much 09:26:46 agreed :/ 09:27:06 tobie: Testing at W3C, there's a massive Mercurial repostisitory, and a lot of WGs have their own sub-directory in there 09:27:14 tobie: in which they have hteir own organization of tests 09:27:28 tobie: Every group has a very different architecture 09:27:38 tobie: Group with clearest process I've seen is WebApps group 09:27:49 s/ dom,/ dom,/g 09:27:55 tobie: A company submits tests, they end up in a repo, they need to get reviewed by someone from a different company 09:28:03 tobie: then they become the test suite for a particular test 09:28:05 -> http://w3c-test.org/ W3C Test Repository referred to by Tobie 09:28:14 tobie: The problem is this review process usually doesn't happen 09:28:23 tobie: So very difficult to figure out which specs are tested, which aren't 09:28:36 tobie: which tests rae good, which are not 09:28:40 tobie: ... 09:28:50 tobie: Given a name of a test suite, need to figure out where the tests are 09:28:55 tobie: Run the test suite 09:29:01 tobie: Log the results and ge thtem back 09:29:09 jo: What state is the JSON API today? 09:29:32 dom: ... 09:29:38 tobie: I played with it, it's alpha [...] 09:29:45 tobie: I have a suggesto to bypass this API altogether 09:29:47 hub has joined #coremob 09:29:56 tobie: Most basic thing, the way the current test runner at W3C works 09:29:58 s/.../the JSON API works, it is used as a back-end to the main UI of the test framework/ 09:30:01 tobie: First you navigate to the test runner 09:30:23 tobie: testrunner has an iframe 09:30:49 tobie: First you go to testrunner, then you get the JSON list of resources, then pull the resources, 09:31:04 tobie: then testrunner automatically figures out results and sends them back to W3C servers 09:31:09 tobie: or you can post to .e.g browserscope.org 09:31:17 tobie: Then someone can look at those results afterwards 09:31:28 tobie: First basic proposition I'm making is that, to fulfill the most important req we have 09:31:37 tobie: would be to just create the test suite on the w3c servers themselves 09:31:45 tobie: and that just rquires us to have a repo there 09:31:54 tobie: pretty easy to do, low-cost, serves that requirement very well 09:32:09 dom: If it does, why looking at alternative solutions 09:32:18 tobie: It only suits our must-have reqs, not the nice-to-have ones 09:32:50 tobie: wouldn't allow something liek ringmark to work, e.g. 09:32:55 tobie: and doesn't allow running on a closed netowrk 09:33:08 tobie: and makes it difficult to run 3rd-party tests 09:33:17 tobie: eg. ECMAScript 09:33:24 tobie: Option 2 09:33:38 gmandyam: why can't it run ringmark? 09:33:56 tobie: this system only works due to same-origin constraints 09:34:00 tobie: b/c of iframe 09:34:08 tobie: W3C would have to modify its stuff 09:34:13 tobie: Option 2 09:34:25 tobie: But instead of hosting testharnes son w3c server, can host it anywhere 09:34:28 tobie: e.g. coremob.org 09:34:51 tobie: This architecture allows for the requirement to have tests hosted on different domains 09:35:10 tobie: testrunner queries JSON API, runs the test pages in an iFrame 09:35:13 jet has joined #coremob 09:35:14 tobie: but the iframe is not same-origin 09:35:21 tobie: What it contains comes from W3C repo 09:35:30 tobie: Solution there is to use post-message 09:35:36 tobie: These are widely-supported 09:35:55 tobie: but would require W3C servers to either whitelist the origin of the testrunner 09:36:08 tobie: or allow posting messages to whatever server 09:36:12 tobie: security implications are small 09:36:19 tobie: Opening some form of DOS attack 09:36:45 tobie: but basically, it requires a change in w3c server that needs to be vetted by someone 09:36:52 tobia has joined #coremob 09:37:10 tobie: My understanding is that the security implications are limited to leaking data of whoever is connected to the server at that time 09:37:14 tobie: but that can be assessed 09:37:17 q? 09:37:26 rob_shilston: I thought it was just a difference in communicating data vai iframe 09:37:35 tobie: It is pretty safe, just needs to be done right 09:37:55 tobie: For it to be completely safe, need to whitelist targets 09:38:08 tobie: but not necessary to do that in the particular case of what we're doing here 09:38:17 tobie: because only message we're sending out is the results of running the tests 09:38:32 tobie: Just need to make sure in that data, there is no personally-identifiable data 09:38:45 tobie: W3C needs to do some work to make that happen and make sure it's not opening a security hole 09:38:51 tobie: But it still has to be done, and explained properly 09:39:04 dom: Another consequence is that it measn to pass the test suite you have to implement postmessage 09:39:08 dom: Makes it an implicit requirement 09:39:21 tobie: There are some iframe tricks to get around this, but horrible mess 09:39:27 tobie: That said if you look at caniuse, 09:39:28 http://caniuse.com/#feat=x-doc-messaging 09:39:38 tobie: The data for this, it seems safe 09:40:24 rob_shilston: This chart isn't focused on mobile 09:40:35 rob_shilston: You have to really do testing for mobile version of browsers 09:40:39 s/rob_shilston/bryan/ 09:41:00 s/rob_shilston/bryn/ 09:41:05 s/bryn/bryan/ 09:41:13 tobie: And it is a coremob requirement 09:42:14 tobie: Want ringmark to be able to run this test suite 09:42:26 tobie: Want the UI for this runner to be runnable from anywhere 09:43:22 tobie: Other cool thing is it allows you to run tests from other groups via same protocol 09:43:43 tobie: You can run any test on a different origin, as long as its able to send its results across origin in a format that is shimmable or that is standardized 09:43:57 tobie: Then you have complete decoupling between the runner and where the tests are 09:44:07 tobie: use cases: running ECMAScript test 09:44:19 tobie: the only thing 262 has to do is to post results through postmessage API 09:44:22 tobie: in a format that we can parse 09:45:09 tobie: cons are it requires change to w3c code, and that it doesn't allow running on closed networks 09:45:20 dom: Seems simple enough change to make 09:46:06 tobie: Next option is... 09:46:23 tobie: There's aproblem with the JSON Api in its current state 09:46:40 tobie: It lets you figure out where the test page is that you watn to run, but it doesn't tell you what resources that test page relies on 09:46:46 tobie: e.g. external CSS or JS or whatever 09:46:53 tobie: or whether it's stati or dynamic 09:47:01 tobie: This is why it's important to run the tests where they are 09:47:06 tobie: instead of getting them 09:47:16 tobie: This third solution is to proxy requests through a remote server 09:47:24 tobie: You go visit coremob server with your device 09:47:28 tobie: it returns the runner 09:47:39 tobie: asks for "give me address of test pages I want to run" 09:47:54 tobie: Then instead of visiting those pages through the iframe, you provide a proxy that's hosted on coremob.org 09:48:01 tobie: with the detail of which page it's supposed to proxy 09:48:10 tobie: So it proxies youre test page, and all subsequent requests made by that page 09:48:14 tobie: that requires a bit of juggling 09:48:30 tobie: an my understanding is it would only be possible because all resources on the w3c test framework are relative and are not absolute URLs 09:48:41 dom: Any testcase that doesn't match that requirement would be buggy 09:49:11 dom: Any testcase that doesn't use relative URLs won't work 09:49:29 fantasai: That would be true of some tests of relative URL / absolute URL handling 09:49:49 Josh_Soref: There are some testcases like this, but you have to run a custom harness for them anyway 09:50:18 tobie: The benefit of this is that the device itself never has to visit the W3C server, or any other server that's hosting tests 09:50:39 tobie: Which leads us to architecture where the tests can be run on a closed network 09:51:02 tobie: The device itself never visits the W3C webserver 09:51:25 tobie: So that enables testing devices without the device's UA string being all over the web 09:51:45 tobie: Might notice that e.g. weeks before iPhone 5 was released, browserscope already had results for it 09:51:57 tobie: this avoids that problem 09:52:31 dom: Problem with specs that require specific server-side components 09:52:58 ... 09:53:09 tobie: Tests that require server-side components would not [pause] 09:53:17 tobie: Why could those not be proxied too? 09:53:24 dom: Could, but the proxy needs to be aware of this 09:53:27 ACTION: Tobie to investigate tests that requie server side components 09:53:27 Created ACTION-57 - Investigate tests that requie server side components [on Tobie Langel - due 2012-10-10]. 09:53:38 tobie: Just getting resources. Excep for websockets 09:53:45 s/Excep/Except/ 09:53:57 dom: WebRTC 09:54:47