> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@w3.org] > On 13/05/2013 15:16 , Arthur Barstow wrote: > > * Web IDL parser: there are at least two [idlharness.js] and > > [webidl2.js]. Which one should be used for CR testing; has anyone > > committed to maintaining and completing the parser; how is it used > > vis-a-vis the CR exit criteria? > > idlharness.js is not a WebIDL parser, it uses webidl2.js under the hood. > As Dom said however, we do have wildproc. Both are believed to be as > correct as we can figure out. > > > * Cameron's Web IDL tests submitted May 12 [Cameron]. How does this > > relate to Travis' plan and the parser work? > > I was hoping that that would actually be enough to transition.
Ultimately, I believe we need to make sure that all the assertions in WebIDL have some testing coverage. I started looking at Cameron's submitted tests today, and they are a blend of tests that could be covered by idlharness.js and those that we would be unable to automatically verify using the auto-generated tests. I think the next step is to map what parts of WebIDL v1 are already covered by the auto-gen'd tests of idlharness.js, and also which parts of the spec are covered by Cameron's recently submitted tests (I see the tests are all marked up, I just need to go through and cross check.) I'll try to do that while I review Cam's tests, and also what's in idlharness.js. ETA 2 weeks? Between the two, if we have coverage for all the essentials (Cam notes some issues where there aren't two testable specs/implementations, and we should review those), then we should try to move on to the next step, which is an "implementation report", right?
