- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:56:33 +0000
- To: "Zhang, Zhiqiang" <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com>
- CC: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "ms2ger@gmail.com" <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Hi Zhiqiang, > On 04 Dec 2015, at 10:00, Zhang, Zhiqiang <zhiqiang.zhang@intel.com> wrote: >> >>> On 18 Nov 2015, at 13:13, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: [...] >>> I have a pending pull request on idlharness that I think would help (at least >> a bit) with this: >>> https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/pull/161 > > This pull request is no acceptable per Ms2ger and my review. I believe the revised PR now address Ms2ger's comments? >> My expectation is Zhiqiang will revise the Battery Status API test suite and >> provide feedback, when the testharness.js PR has landed. > > I just have a quick testing on Firefox Nightly and Chrome, and make a test report at > > https://w3c.github.io/test-results/battery-status/all.html > > ... for your info. Zhiqiang - can you summarize the reason for test failures in all.html, in particular for test cases that fail in both Chrome and Firefox and are not manual tests? I believe battery-interface-idlharness.html and battery-interface.html tests are overlapping, so we should pick one and drop another. If promises support in idlharness.js is limited, we might consider using battery-interface.html instead and patch it where needed to get good test coverage. Or better, patch idlharness.js, and use the former tests. What is your preference? We discussed on the last call that process-wise next step would be to move this spec to PR when we can demonstrate two interop implementations. The test suite is now on the critical path. Related to my ACTION-741. Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 12:57:09 UTC