Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rewrite tests to reduce running time #16838

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 15, 2019
Merged

Rewrite tests to reduce running time #16838

merged 1 commit into from May 15, 2019

Conversation

@rwlbuis
Copy link
Contributor

rwlbuis commented May 15, 2019

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

yoavweiss left a comment

Thanks for making the tests faster!! :)

@@ -16,6 +16,11 @@ function verifyNumberOfResourceTimingEntries(url, number)
assert_equals(numEntries, number, url);

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@yoavweiss

yoavweiss May 15, 2019

Contributor

Nit: You could use the helper function here

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@rwlbuis

rwlbuis May 15, 2019

Author Contributor

Will do.

}
iterations++;
if (iterations == 10) {
verifyNumberOfResourceTimingEntries("resources/square.png?link-header-preload", 1);

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@yoavweiss

yoavweiss May 15, 2019

Contributor

Why do you need to verify here if you already checked for the values earlier? I don't think these asserts will ever pass. Or are you expecting them to fail? If so, maybe make that failure more explicit? (e.g. assert_unreached)

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@rwlbuis

rwlbuis May 15, 2019

Author Contributor

I wanted to make this test behave similarly to the current version and give feedback which asserts are failing. If you think it is ok to instead have a generic unreached message, I am fine with that as well?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@yoavweiss

yoavweiss May 15, 2019

Contributor

That's fair. Maybe then add a comment that you expect them to fail? Also, I forget but do we need a done() in case of failed expectations?

Copy link
Contributor

yoavweiss left a comment

LGTM % discussed nits

@rwlbuis rwlbuis force-pushed the preload branch from cba8c2d to fa9ade2 May 15, 2019
@rwlbuis rwlbuis force-pushed the preload branch from fa9ade2 to c47acf8 May 15, 2019
@rwlbuis rwlbuis merged commit 7f72c4e into master May 15, 2019
12 checks passed
12 checks passed
manifest-build-and-tag manifest-build-and-tag
Details
website-build-and-publish website-build-and-publish
Details
Azure Pipelines Build #20190515.44 succeeded
Details
Azure Pipelines (./wpt test-jobs) ./wpt test-jobs succeeded
Details
Azure Pipelines (affected tests (Safari Technology Preview)) affected tests (Safari Technology Preview) succeeded
Details
Azure Pipelines (affected tests without changes (Safari Technology Preview)) affected tests without changes (Safari Technology Preview) succeeded
Details
Azure Pipelines (wpt.fyi hook: safari-preview-affected-tests) wpt.fyi hook: safari-preview-affected-tests succeeded
Details
Azure Pipelines (wpt.fyi hook: safari-preview-affected-tests-without-changes) wpt.fyi hook: safari-preview-affected-tests-without-changes succeeded
Details
Taskcluster (pull_request) TaskGroup: success
Details
wpt.fyi - chrome[experimental] Chrome results
Details
wpt.fyi - firefox[experimental] Firefox results
Details
wpt.fyi - safari[experimental] Safari results
Details
@rwlbuis rwlbuis deleted the preload branch May 15, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.