3 ms·
Yes, I am. I'm an implementor. Some of the most fundamental parts of the web don't have comprehensive test suites. IndexedDB is relatively much more modern. Ho
by andrewmcwatters 5y ago
Yes, I am. I'm an implementor. Some of the most fundamental parts of the web don't have comprehensive test suites. IndexedDB is relatively much more modern.
However, if you do stumble on some tests for basic things like the box model, I'd love to know where they are! Tests like those would allow other vendors to know whether or not they're adhering to specification, programmatically.
Earlier standards are very descriptive, rather than telling you how to implement the actual web technologies. That's left as an exercise for the reader. Seriously!
- hu3 5y agoInteresting. This makes it even more bafling to me that Safari doesn't have basic unit tests for a modern feature such as IndexedDb. It's certainly not for a lack of funds. I guess applications living in the browser don't align well with Apple's interest in pushing their app store.
- andrewmcwatters 5y agoA part of it is interest, too. Simply because there is a exceedingly small number of vendors, building comprehensive test suites that benefit newcomers is just not in most organizations' best interests. There actually are some partial tests from the W3C regarding basic web technologies, but they're not really automated ones in the way you'd think.
- shawnz 5y agoI don't think the other poster was talking about automated tests for conformance to the specification, just basic unit tests indicating that the feature works at all by any reasonable definition.
- lostmsu 5y agoThat kind of an issue is generally tested against by integration tests. Depending on the root cause unit tests for the entry point code might not have caught it.
- shawnz 5y agoYou are right, an integration test would probably be better for demonstrating that this feature works. I only mean to say that you don't need a whole compliance testing suite to catch a major bug like this.
- onion2k 5y agoHowever, if you do stumble on some tests for basic things like the box model, I'd love to know where they are! Its not really a test suite, but back in the early days of CSS we had https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2 It'd be easy to write a set of tests based on Acid2. There's also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 but that doesn't quite test things 'properly'.
- andrewmcwatters 5y agoYes, I fondly remember the Acid tests. Unfortunately, they aren’t very useful for implementors as they don’t cover the entire breadth of the specifications in isolation. In addition the specs have changed somewhat so now CSS 2.1 and the modules that existed at that point in time have matured beyond what the tests were written for, so a browser matching the spec today would fail. They were very fun for end users to see whether or not a browser was in compliance, though!
- exikyut 5y agoI wonder if the path of least resistance would be to slowly convince the people that like writing Acid* tests to take things up a notch and rearchitect the next version(s) so that success is a measurement of collective+isolated implementational correctness. Such an effort would probably involve a higher level of ongoing support from the vendor side of the fence (in terms of motivation and iterative discussion etc), but relative to other options might be, as I said, the path of least resistance. </armchair_idea>