I disagree. Bridge interface is identical across platforms (cordova.exec) and a platform-agnostic test working against the exec interface, comparing relative performance/correctness of each underlying implementation is a perfectly reasonable, and obviously useful, test to have around.
On 9/11/12 2:37 PM, "Jesse MacFadyen" <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: >-1 >These tests should live in their respective platforms. Exposing it as >an API gives away our sausage recipe, and no-one should ever care, >outside of the bridge developer. > >Cheers, > Jesse > > >On 2012-09-11, at 2:21 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> 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. >>
