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

Updated ServiceWorker IDL file #9886

Conversation

@lukebjerring
Copy link
Contributor

lukebjerring commented Mar 6, 2018

No description provided.

@wpt-pr-bot wpt-pr-bot requested review from jensl and yuki3 Mar 6, 2018

@w3c-bots

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

w3c-bots commented Mar 6, 2018

Build PASSED

Started: 2018-03-29 19:08:22
Finished: 2018-03-29 19:13:39

View more information about this build on:

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
partial interface ServiceWorkerGlobalScope {

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@foolip

foolip Mar 7, 2018

Contributor

There must be a bug here, https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/ has loads of IDL.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@lukebjerring

lukebjerring Mar 14, 2018

Author Contributor

Looks to be the case.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@foolip

foolip Mar 21, 2018

Contributor

Now fixed it seems.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@mkruisselbrink

mkruisselbrink Mar 28, 2018

Contributor

This seems incorrectly include the example-only IDL from https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#extensibility? Neither this nor the previous definition are normative (both of them are inside class=example and data-no-idl blocks, which at least tells bikeshed that it shouldn't consider them to be part of the normative spec text).

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@lukebjerring

lukebjerring Mar 28, 2018

Author Contributor

Thanks for reviewing carefully enough to notice.

@mdittmer - Is the scraper a little over-eager here?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@mdittmer

mdittmer Mar 28, 2018

Contributor

That could be. Our exclusion criteria should be detecting the example CSS class name here. Perhaps we should file an issue.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@lukebjerring

lukebjerring Mar 29, 2018

Author Contributor

@lukebjerring lukebjerring force-pushed the lukebjerring:idl-file-updates-ServiceWorker branch 3 times, most recently from d0fc7ea to 62c0c9a Mar 7, 2018

@lukebjerring lukebjerring force-pushed the lukebjerring:idl-file-updates-ServiceWorker branch from 62c0c9a to 170efcd Mar 28, 2018

@lukebjerring

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

lukebjerring commented Mar 28, 2018

Updated the tests. Note that some of the IDL is untested (but, it's made more obvious with the {only: [...]} than trying to eyeball-diff the IDL js file and the scraped file. We also lost some tests in transit:

Before: Ran 385 checks (2 tests, 383 subtests)
After: Ran 356 checks (2 tests, 354 subtests)

@lukebjerring

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

lukebjerring commented Mar 29, 2018

@mkruisselbrink - updated with the example-only stuff stripped, as per landing GoogleChromeLabs/webidl-diff#107 and re-running the scraper.

PTAL

@foolip

foolip approved these changes Mar 30, 2018

@lukebjerring lukebjerring merged commit 51b2242 into web-platform-tests:master Apr 3, 2018

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@lukebjerring lukebjerring deleted the lukebjerring:idl-file-updates-ServiceWorker branch Apr 3, 2018

@lukebjerring lukebjerring restored the lukebjerring:idl-file-updates-ServiceWorker branch May 22, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.