-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
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
Delete test_valid_but_unmatchable_key webdriver test #17795
Delete test_valid_but_unmatchable_key webdriver test #17795
Conversation
That's the wrong bit of spec. I think the spec is unclear here, but the relevant part is the validate capabilites algorithm. In this case the question is "is foo:unmatched the name of an extension capability"? I think the spec is unclear about whether any capability including the |
Note that this test is also in conflict with https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/webdriver/tests/new_session/support/create.py#L38, where "test:extension" is considered to be a valid capability. If we decide to interpret the spec as intending to reject all unrecognized extension capabilities, then "test:extension" should be moved to invalid_data section. |
To your last point, we can’t reject unknown extension capabilities because they may not all be meant for the endpoint node. For example, there may exist extension capabilities in the new session request that are meant for intermediary nodes, so the design of the capabilities matching is meant for them to be passed through uninterrupted. This is why we test that |
If |
I also do not understand the reasoning behind |
Updates on this? Would like to not forget about this PR |
This issue was discussed during TPAC (https://www.w3.org/2019/09/19-webdriver-minutes.html#item11), and the resolution was to always accept unknown extension capabilities. So I believe this PR should be merged. Could someone with write access to the repo handle it? Thanks. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Although not a part of the WG, I was at the meeting and @JohnChen0 's summary matches my understanding.
I'm going to approve and merge this now to not let the PR go stale. If I missed anything, feel free to revert it.
@JohnChen0 is going to send a PR to clarify the spec. |
@JohnChen0 In light of w3c/webdriver#1454 (review), perhaps this should be changed to reject unknown extension capabilities instead of beng deleted? |
@andreastt Please see my comment at w3c/webdriver#1454 (comment), and the TPAC minutes. My understanding is unknown extension capabilities should be accepted instead of rejected. |
WebDriver spec has been updated for clarification (w3c/webdriver#1454). Can this PR be merged now? Thanks. |
Retriggered tests. We can merge once they pass. |
Ahh we need a rebase. |
Done, and thanks for the patience! |
Thanks! |
This test is designed with the assumption that the first set of capabilities should be rejected during the matching capabilities algorithm at step 3 when following the "otherwise" substep due to the extension capability "foo:unmatchable".
However, the test incorrectly assumes that the implementation-specific steps will result in an unsuccessful match. The test therefore is no longer strictly adhering to the defined spec.
No browsers are currently passing this tests so I propose that it should be removed.