PointerEvent detail=0 test #3351
Conversation
|
Reviewers for this pull request are: @EvgenyAgafonchikov, @RByers, @Steditor, @bethge, @jacobrossi, @plehegar, @scottgonzalez, and @staktrace. |
|
Critic review: https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/6747 This is an external review system which you may optionally use for the code review of your pull request. In order to help critic track your changes, please do not make in-place history rewrites (e.g. via |
| @@ -13,9 +13,10 @@ var All_Pointer_Events = [ | |||
| // Check for conformance to PointerEvent interface | |||
| // TA: 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13 | |||
| function check_PointerEvent(event) { | |||
| let pointerTestName = event.pointerType + ' ' + event.type; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should use var for consistency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it okay to change all "var" to "let" in this file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if the W3C has any standard policy on this. I'd personally prefer for us to use var just because PEP runs this test suite and supports IE 10, so there'd be less work involved for us if we didn't have to worry about let.
|
Are the |
|
No they are not. It was something I've been meaning to add and just added it to this PR. Should I have created a separate PR for it? |
Probably. What's the motivation for adding them? |
|
Basically all actionable elements in these tests have id. So I thought to be consistent we need id for these items as well as we need to interact with them. We used id in our automation scripts to run these tests and to be consistent and not add more stuff to that I thought maybe it is good to just have id for these two elements as well. |
|
LGTM |
closes #3349 as a test for w3c/pointerevents#116 change in the spec.