Test http server #994
Merged
Test http server #994
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Code like this: ``` var body: ?*ElementHTML = undefined; const err = documentHTMLVtable(doc_html).get_body.?(doc_html, &body); try DOMErr(err); if (body == null) return null; return @as(*Body, @ptrCast(body.?)); ``` Isn't safe. It assumes that libdom will either return an error, or set body to null or a value. However, there are cases (specifically for this API) where libdom returns DOM_NO_ERR without ever setting body. In such cases, we return a `body` initialized to a random (invalid) value. This PR replaces the initial value of optional types from undefined to null (within the libdom wrapper).
Depends on #993 There's currently 3 ways to execute a page: 1 - page.navigate (as used in both the 'fetch' and 'serve' commands) 2 - jsRunner as used in unit tests 3 - main_wpt as used in the WPT runner Both jsRunner and main_wpt replicate the page.navigate code, but in their own hack-ish way. main_wpt re-implements the DOM walking in order to extract and execute <script> tags, as well as the needed page lifecycle events. This PR replaces the existing main_wpt loader with a call to page.navigate. To support this, a test HTTP server was added. (The test HTTP server is extracted from the existing unit test test server, and re-used between the two). There are benefits to this approach: 1 - The code is simpler 2 - More of the actual code and flow is tested 3 - There's 1 way to do things (page.navigate) 4 - Having an HTTP server might unlock some WPT tests Technically, we're replacing file IO with network IO i.e. http requests). This has potential downsides: 1 - The tests might be more brittle 2 - The tests might be slower I think we need to run it for a while to see if we get flaky behavior. The goal for following PRs is to bring this unification to the jsRunner.
karlseguin
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 1, 2025
Follows up on #994 and replaces the jsRunner with a new page.navigation-based test runner. Currently only implemented for the Window tests, looking for feedback and converting every existing test will take time - so for a while, newRunner (to be renamed) will sit side-by-side with jsRunner. In addition to the benefits outlined in 994, largely around code simplicity and putting more of the actual code under tests, I think our WebAPI tests particularly benefit from: 1 - No need to recompile when modifying the html tests 2 - Much better assertions, e.g. you can assert that something is actually an array, not just a string representation of an array 3 - Ability to test some edge cases (e.g. dynamic script loading) I've put some effort into testing.js to make sure that, if the encapsulating zig test passes, it's because it actually passed, not because it didn't run. For the time being, console tests are removed. I think it's more useful to have access to the console within tests, than it is to test the console (which is just a wrapper around log, which is both tested and heavily used).
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Start unifying test and code
Depends on #993
There's currently 3 ways to execute a page:
1 - page.navigate (as used in both the 'fetch' and 'serve' commands)
2 - jsRunner as used in unit tests
3 - main_wpt as used in the WPT runner
Both jsRunner and main_wpt replicate the page.navigate code, but in their own
hack-ish way. main_wpt re-implements the DOM walking in order to extract and
execute <script> tags, as well as the needed page lifecycle events.
This PR replaces the existing main_wpt loader with a call to page.navigate. To
support this, a test HTTP server was added. (The test HTTP server is extracted
from the existing unit test test server, and re-used between the two).
There are benefits to this approach:
1 - The code is simpler
2 - More of the actual code and flow is tested
3 - There's 1 way to do things (page.navigate)
4 - Having an HTTP server might unlock some WPT tests
Technically, we're replacing file IO with network IO i.e. http requests). This
has potential downsides:
1 - The tests might be more brittle
2 - The tests might be slower
I think we need to run it for a while to see if we get flaky behavior.
The goal for following PRs is to bring this unification to the jsRunner.