4 ms·

All you need is a round of testing for cross-browser compatibility. It's a pretty much solved problem by now, doesn't take that much time and can be automated.

All you need is a round of testing for cross-browser compatibility. It's a pretty much solved problem by now, doesn't take that much time and can be automated. There is nothing stopping every developer from doing it - besides the usual pressure to deliver features in place of proper engineering.

dmitriid 6y ago
> All you need is a round of testing for cross-browser compatibility. It's a pretty much solved problem by now, doesn't take that much time and can be automated. Please show me a solved automated test for the issue in the post.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  There are several online cross-platform browser testing services. You don't even need a non-mac yourself. If the company is large enough to alwayus test locally, most modern testers will use VMs or some sort of containerization for repeatable determinism. This is absolutely a solved problem.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    Online isn't real-life. You can test in a VM, but it will never be the same as testing on actual hardware. Even my craptastic company gives me a bunch of devices to test on. And I very deliberately specify very low-end versions of the machines so that I can test against worst-case-scenarios. It's a bonus that sub-optimal hardware is cheap as chips. My favorite testing device is a $20 burner phone I picked up in the supermarket checkout aisle. If the web site works on that piece of poo, it'll work on anything. Right now I'm waiting for UPS to deliver an old iPad from Alaska that the IT department bought for me off of fleaBay, just so that I can test on sub-optimal actual hardware.
    - IncRnd 6y ago
      > Online isn't real-life. You can test in a VM, but it will never be the same as testing on actual hardware. Ths context is that testing is a solved problem. You are taking specific factual examples I wrote and attempting to debunk them with a general statement that is in agreement with what I wrote. Testing scrollbards can absolutely be tested inside a VM. Pretending that native hardware is needed to cover 99% of the use-cases for scrollbars is kind of silly. > Even my craptastic company gives me a bunch of devices to test on. And I very deliberately specify very low-end versions of the machines so that I can test against worst-case-scenarios. It's a bonus that sub-optimal hardware is cheap as chips. You've made my point. This is a solved problem.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        > Ths context is that testing is a solved problem. The only problem that is solved is running multiple browsers in VMs in a cloud. Everything else is anyone's guess. To come up with an automated test for the problem in the OP you have to be a) aware of the problem and b) have a way to test that scrollbars do/don't appear. Good luck with that.
        IncRnd 6y ago
        > The only problem that is solved is running multiple browsers in VMs in a cloud. Everything else is anyone's guess. That false hyperbole. Just because you do not know something, that doesn't mean that nobody else does. > To come up with an automated test for the problem in the OP you have to be a) aware of the problem and b) have a way to test that scrollbars do/don't appear. Good luck with that. No luck is needed, just tests. You may not realize, but test frameworks already exist for testing the screen for the presence of UI elements. That is how dialog boxes are clicked in tests. This is literally solved.
        dmitriid 6y ago
        > Just because you do not know something, that doesn't mean that nobody else does. For the third time you've failed to show how to test for the problem described in OP. It tells me that you don't know > test frameworks already exist for testing the screen for the presence of UI elements Which ones test for the presence/absence of scrollbars?
    - ricardobeat 6y ago
      > Online isn't real-life. You can test in a VM, but it will never be the same as testing on actual hardware. Testing platforms like SauceLabs, Browserstack etc run on real hardware, even for mobile. Testing with your own devices is of course better, but a lot more work. Which one you choose doesn't really matter, the point is just that you don't _need_ to have all those resources to do basic compatibility testing, so no excuses.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    This is a non-answer to my question.
    - IncRnd 6y ago
      No. It was an answer. The correct answer is that there are many ways to test for this. Just look for one.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        If you knew the answer, you would've already answered this. Instead, you keep giving non-answers until you admit that you don't test yourself, and that other people use some libraries, you don't know which.
        IncRnd 6y ago
        I did - with two specific answers. Then I went and asked a security tester and told you the results of that question. You can keep using all the words and comments that you want, but the simple truth is that this is a solved problem, I gave you two solutions, and yet you keep using ad hominem attacks. As you yourself wrote, "Ignorance is bliss". Those are your words, not mine.

dmitriid 6y ago

> All you need is a round of testing for cross-browser compatibility. It's a pretty much solved problem by now, doesn't take that much time and can be automated. Please show me a solved automated test for the issue in the post.

IncRnd 6y ago
There are several online cross-platform browser testing services. You don't even need a non-mac yourself. If the company is large enough to alwayus test locally, most modern testers will use VMs or some sort of containerization for repeatable determinism. This is absolutely a solved problem.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Online isn't real-life. You can test in a VM, but it will never be the same as testing on actual hardware. Even my craptastic company gives me a bunch of devices to test on. And I very deliberately specify very low-end versions of the machines so that I can test against worst-case-scenarios. It's a bonus that sub-optimal hardware is cheap as chips. My favorite testing device is a $20 burner phone I picked up in the supermarket checkout aisle. If the web site works on that piece of poo, it'll work on anything. Right now I'm waiting for UPS to deliver an old iPad from Alaska that the IT department bought for me off of fleaBay, just so that I can test on sub-optimal actual hardware.
  - IncRnd 6y ago
    > Online isn't real-life. You can test in a VM, but it will never be the same as testing on actual hardware. Ths context is that testing is a solved problem. You are taking specific factual examples I wrote and attempting to debunk them with a general statement that is in agreement with what I wrote. Testing scrollbards can absolutely be tested inside a VM. Pretending that native hardware is needed to cover 99% of the use-cases for scrollbars is kind of silly. > Even my craptastic company gives me a bunch of devices to test on. And I very deliberately specify very low-end versions of the machines so that I can test against worst-case-scenarios. It's a bonus that sub-optimal hardware is cheap as chips. You've made my point. This is a solved problem.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      > Ths context is that testing is a solved problem. The only problem that is solved is running multiple browsers in VMs in a cloud. Everything else is anyone's guess. To come up with an automated test for the problem in the OP you have to be a) aware of the problem and b) have a way to test that scrollbars do/don't appear. Good luck with that.
      - IncRnd 6y ago
        > The only problem that is solved is running multiple browsers in VMs in a cloud. Everything else is anyone's guess. That false hyperbole. Just because you do not know something, that doesn't mean that nobody else does. > To come up with an automated test for the problem in the OP you have to be a) aware of the problem and b) have a way to test that scrollbars do/don't appear. Good luck with that. No luck is needed, just tests. You may not realize, but test frameworks already exist for testing the screen for the presence of UI elements. That is how dialog boxes are clicked in tests. This is literally solved.
        dmitriid 6y ago
        > Just because you do not know something, that doesn't mean that nobody else does. For the third time you've failed to show how to test for the problem described in OP. It tells me that you don't know > test frameworks already exist for testing the screen for the presence of UI elements Which ones test for the presence/absence of scrollbars?
  - ricardobeat 6y ago
    > Online isn't real-life. You can test in a VM, but it will never be the same as testing on actual hardware. Testing platforms like SauceLabs, Browserstack etc run on real hardware, even for mobile. Testing with your own devices is of course better, but a lot more work. Which one you choose doesn't really matter, the point is just that you don't _need_ to have all those resources to do basic compatibility testing, so no excuses.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  This is a non-answer to my question.
  - IncRnd 6y ago
    No. It was an answer. The correct answer is that there are many ways to test for this. Just look for one.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      If you knew the answer, you would've already answered this. Instead, you keep giving non-answers until you admit that you don't test yourself, and that other people use some libraries, you don't know which.
      - IncRnd 6y ago
        I did - with two specific answers. Then I went and asked a security tester and told you the results of that question. You can keep using all the words and comments that you want, but the simple truth is that this is a solved problem, I gave you two solutions, and yet you keep using ad hominem attacks. As you yourself wrote, "Ignorance is bliss". Those are your words, not mine.