Bug 40384

Summary: Test how XML directives get attached to the DOM
Product: WebKit Reporter: Adam Barth <abarth>
Component: New BugsAssignee: Adam Barth <abarth>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal CC: eric
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: Other   
OS: OS X 10.5   
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 39259    
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch eric: review+

Description Adam Barth 2010-06-09 12:38:34 PDT
Test how XML directives get attached to the DOM
Comment 1 Adam Barth 2010-06-09 12:44:05 PDT
Created attachment 58279 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 Eric Seidel (no email) 2010-06-09 13:17:02 PDT
Comment on attachment 58279 [details]
Patch

OK.  So the new parser currently "fails" this test, right?  Wouldn't it be better to just check for document.firstChild and see that it's a comment?
Comment 3 Adam Barth 2010-06-09 13:52:33 PDT
I liked the idea of crawling the DOM to make sure things were hooked up right.
Comment 4 Eric Seidel (no email) 2010-06-09 13:54:07 PDT
The problem with your new test is that its not self contained.  Its not easy to see from it if it passed or failed.

If you wanted to walk, you could check each type with some shouldBe's and that woudl be better.
Comment 5 Adam Barth 2010-06-09 14:09:47 PDT
You have to look at the expected results to see what we expect to happen...  That doesn't seem unreasonable.
Comment 6 Eric Seidel (no email) 2010-06-09 14:12:30 PDT
Sure, but that requires a gold file.  Ideally tests contain their own results with PASS, FAIL messages.  Your test is OK, tests which contain their own expectations are better.  I owe Darin Adler a "design doc" of sorts on this subject.
Comment 7 Adam Barth 2010-06-09 14:20:07 PDT
Committed r60913: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/60913>
Comment 8 Adam Barth 2010-06-09 14:29:07 PDT
Sometimes tests with embedded PASS/FAIL are more work because you need to edit the tests when something changes instead of just having different results.  In any case, we're over engineering this test. :)