Bug 96810 - [touchadjustment] touch-links-longpress tests passes incorrectly
Summary: [touchadjustment] touch-links-longpress tests passes incorrectly
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WebKit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: UI Events (show other bugs)
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)
Hardware: Unspecified Unspecified
: P2 Normal
Assignee: Rick Byers
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 96677
Blocks: 100619
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-09-14 11:13 PDT by Rick Byers
Modified: 2012-10-30 11:45 PDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Patch (7.63 KB, patch)
2012-10-25 07:08 PDT, Rick Byers
no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Patch (8.25 KB, patch)
2012-10-25 10:35 PDT, Rick Byers
no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Rick Byers 2012-09-14 11:13:17 PDT
the touchadjustment/touch-links-longpress.html test has some bugs that result in it passing without actually testing touch adjustment (it's actually touching on the elements, instead of nearby them).  I've got fixes, as well as some changes to make the test more robust.
Comment 1 Rick Byers 2012-09-14 11:48:47 PDT
My fix for bug 96677 has to go in first (as it adds another test of this style).  Once it lands, I'll update this (and any other necessary) tests with the same fixes.
Comment 2 Allan Sandfeld Jensen 2012-09-17 05:45:26 PDT
That adjustment works for context-menus is already be tested by the touchadjustment/context-menu-* tests. 

So all this test need to test, is that the adjustment is applied to the longpress event.
Comment 3 Allan Sandfeld Jensen 2012-10-02 03:30:59 PDT
Note this test also failed with the patch in bug #96908, this means some of the hits are also outside of the frame. If that is not intended, it should also be fixed.
Comment 4 Rick Byers 2012-10-25 07:08:12 PDT
Created attachment 170639 [details]
Patch
Comment 5 Rick Byers 2012-10-25 07:10:21 PDT
Finally getting back to this little issue I discovered when working on bug 96677.  My patch just applies the same technique I used there (touch adjustment tests for tap down gesture) to this test (longpress gesture).

Allan / Terry - can you guys take a look at this little patch please?
Comment 6 Allan Sandfeld Jensen 2012-10-25 07:27:57 PDT
Comment on attachment 170639 [details]
Patch

You need to at least skip the test on Qt, and any other platforms that have implement EventSender::gestureLongTap.
Comment 7 Rick Byers 2012-10-25 07:37:52 PDT
(In reply to comment #6)
> (From update of attachment 170639 [details])
> You need to at least skip the test on Qt, and any other platforms that have implement EventSender::gestureLongTap.

This isn't a new test - it's already skipped there.
Comment 8 Allan Sandfeld Jensen 2012-10-25 07:59:28 PDT
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > (From update of attachment 170639 [details] [details])
> > You need to at least skip the test on Qt, and any other platforms that have implement EventSender::gestureLongTap.
> 
> This isn't a new test - it's already skipped there.

Okay. I thought I had unskipped it when I implemented GestureLongPress.
Comment 9 Rick Byers 2012-10-25 10:22:09 PDT
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > (From update of attachment 170639 [details] [details] [details])
> > > You need to at least skip the test on Qt, and any other platforms that have implement EventSender::gestureLongTap.
> > 
> > This isn't a new test - it's already skipped there.
> 
> Okay. I thought I had unskipped it when I implemented GestureLongPress.

Oh I'm sorry - you're right, I didn't realize that had changed.  It looks like the qt EWS passed though, does it run the touchadjustment tests?  Perhaps (unlike chromium) qt doesn't require width/height to be supplied to enable touch adjustment (do you apply some default perhaps)?

Anyway I'm happy to skip it again if you like.  If it's failing now with my change then touch adjustment of long press really wasn't working before anyway - right?
Comment 10 Allan Sandfeld Jensen 2012-10-25 10:29:39 PDT
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > (In reply to comment #7)
> > > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > > (From update of attachment 170639 [details] [details] [details] [details])
> > > > You need to at least skip the test on Qt, and any other platforms that have implement EventSender::gestureLongTap.
> > > 
> > > This isn't a new test - it's already skipped there.
> > 
> > Okay. I thought I had unskipped it when I implemented GestureLongPress.
> 
> Oh I'm sorry - you're right, I didn't realize that had changed.  It looks like the qt EWS passed though, does it run the touchadjustment tests?  Perhaps (unlike chromium) qt doesn't require width/height to be supplied to enable touch adjustment (do you apply some default perhaps)?
> 
> Anyway I'm happy to skip it again if you like.  If it's failing now with my change then touch adjustment of long press really wasn't working before anyway - right?

Only Chromium and Mac runs the layout tests in the EWS. Qt only runs the layout-tests in the waterfall console.
Comment 11 Rick Byers 2012-10-25 10:35:58 PDT
Created attachment 170687 [details]
Patch
Comment 12 Rick Byers 2012-10-25 10:37:02 PDT
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created an attachment (id=170687) [details]
> Patch

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > (In reply to comment #8)
> > > (In reply to comment #7)
> > > > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > > > (From update of attachment 170639 [details] [details] [details] [details] [details])
> > > > > You need to at least skip the test on Qt, and any other platforms that have implement EventSender::gestureLongTap.
> > > > 
> > > > This isn't a new test - it's already skipped there.
> > > 
> > > Okay. I thought I had unskipped it when I implemented GestureLongPress.
> > 
> > Oh I'm sorry - you're right, I didn't realize that had changed.  It looks like the qt EWS passed though, does it run the touchadjustment tests?  Perhaps (unlike chromium) qt doesn't require width/height to be supplied to enable touch adjustment (do you apply some default perhaps)?
> > 
> > Anyway I'm happy to skip it again if you like.  If it's failing now with my change then touch adjustment of long press really wasn't working before anyway - right?
> 
> Only Chromium and Mac runs the layout tests in the EWS. Qt only runs the layout-tests in the waterfall console.

Thanks, I've skipped it for QT then (only change in this patch is to qt/TestExpectations).
Comment 13 WebKit Review Bot 2012-10-25 10:39:04 PDT
Attachment 170687 [details] did not pass style-queue:

Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files', u'LayoutTests/ChangeLog', u'LayoutTests/plat..." exit_code: 1
LayoutTests/platform/qt/TestExpectations:2480:  Path does not exist.  [test/expectations] [5]
Total errors found: 1 in 7 files


If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Comment 14 Rick Byers 2012-10-25 10:55:02 PDT
(In reply to comment #13)
> Attachment 170687 [details] did not pass style-queue:
> 
> Failed to run "['Tools/Scripts/check-webkit-style', '--diff-files', u'LayoutTests/ChangeLog', u'LayoutTests/plat..." exit_code: 1
> LayoutTests/platform/qt/TestExpectations:2480:  Path does not exist.  [test/expectations] [5]
> Total errors found: 1 in 7 files
> 
> 
> If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.

It looks like there's a rebaseline going on right now triggering this - eg. see r126957.
Comment 15 Terry Anderson 2012-10-29 13:38:35 PDT
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created an attachment (id=170687) [details]
> Patch

This change looks good to me.
Comment 16 Rick Byers 2012-10-30 11:21:09 PDT
Comment on attachment 170687 [details]
Patch

Thanks Antonio!
Comment 17 WebKit Review Bot 2012-10-30 11:45:02 PDT
Comment on attachment 170687 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 170687

Committed r132929: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/132929>
Comment 18 WebKit Review Bot 2012-10-30 11:45:06 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.