I like the idea of using WebDriver for WPT conformance testing.
Such results will probably be more meaningful for conformance than what WTR
or DRT could produce.
For WPT regression testing, we would stick to using WTR/DRT and internals
methods instead of WebDriver, am I right?
Le lun. 12 févr. 2018 à 07:08, <z...@falconsigh.net> a écrit :
> the web-platform-tests repository includes tooling that enables running
> those tests against a supported browser product. I'd like to propose adding
> generic WebKit support there.
> Current changes only assume usage of the WebDriver protocol, and the
> WebDriver binary accepting the --port flag. Selenium executors are used for
> test harness and reftests. Same WebDriver implementation can also be tested
> against the WebDriver tests included in the web-platform-tests directory,
> presuming the tests are enabled or explicitly specified.
> Only port-specific bit is the specification of capabilities that are
> passed to the WebDriver binary, idea being that these capabilities are the
> same as those supported by the WebDriver implementation.
> GTK is for now the only port that's supported, and it's leveraging the
> WebDriver implementation under Source/WebDriver/ in WebKit. WPE will be
> doing the same. Safari I suppose could use its own WebDriver
> implementation, or perhaps even a separate product.
> Here's the current set of changes:
> The web-platform-tests suite can then be run like this for the GTK port,
> assuming a tip-of-trunk build:
> $ /work/web-platform-tests/wpt run --webkit-port=gtk \
> --webdriver-binary=WebKitBuild/Release/bin/WebKitWebDriver \
> --binary=WebKitBuild/Release/bin/MiniBrowser \
> --binary-arg=--automation \
> --binary-arg=--enable-xss-auditor=false \
> webkit /2dcontext
> This can be further wrapped into a python script and run as part of the
> continuous integration system. These changes add a run-web-platform-tests
> script that invokes the web-platform-tests runner tool, also allowing each
> port to specify what tests to enable and what the expected failures are:
> Only a small subset of tests is enabled there, for prototype purposes. The
> expected results system could also be improved to avoid each expected
> failure having to be marked as such in separate .ini files.
> But foremost, I'd like to have a consensus of sorts about how various
> WebKit ports should be handled in the web-platform-tests repository, so
> that the changes there can proceed -- whether it's fine to implement a
> generic WebKit product, or whether Safari would like to be treated as a
> separate browser, etc.
>  There's for instance this from a year ago (though not sure about its
> webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev mailing list