Nice work on that Joe. I definitely support enumerating the bridge modes.
I'm thinking this should be a standard field that platforms can override on a per-platform basis. In the top-level "cordova" module perhaps? On 9/11/12 6:26 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: >On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey >> >> Responses inline: >> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > Hey Joe, >> > >> > Wondering why make this into a jasmine test? Does it make the results >> more >> > easily captured? >> > >> >> Yes, it also makes other known bugs glaringly obvious, like the >> numerous bugs with JS_OBJECT and the Callback Server. Now, instead of >> having to go through repro steps, I can just run this test. >> >> It also makes it easier to run a small amount of tests on a wide range >> of devices quickly instead of manually having to pick modes, and it in >> theory could work with the Continuous Integration that we're hoping to >> have in our office as well. I was doing testing on the HTC One X that >> arrived on my desk and my results looked different enough from the >> Galaxy Nexus that I wanted this. I was able to run through a >> half-dozen Android devices to see if the results on this end were >> similar to the ones that you had in the ticket. >> > >That's awesome!! > > >> >> > Other thing I'm wondering is if this should use some JS reflection to >> detect >> > the available bridge modes since they are different on iOS and >> non-existant >> > on others (mobile-spec tests are supposed to work on all platforms >> correct?) >> >> It probably would make sense for the bridges to be enumerated for >> readability. So far, only iOS and Android have configurable bridges, >> right? I think this test make sense here, but not added to the "Run >> All Tests" page. >> > >Sounds good.
