Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Test SpeechSynthesisUtterance volume attribute #9963
Please have a look at https://web-platform-tests.org/writing-tests/manual.html for some tips for manual tests, in particular the test needs to make it clear to the person running it what is passing and not. For example, you might try to utter the "FAIL" with volume 0, then the word "PASS" with volume 1, and instructions say that the test passes if you only hear the PASS.
requested review from
and removed request for
Mar 18, 2019
referenced this pull request
Mar 18, 2019
@guest271314 did you accidentally merge in more stuff to this PR? Did you have a look at https://web-platform-tests.org/writing-tests/manual.html? Sorry this has been sitting for so long, but it hasn't come up in my inbox because nothing happened until now.
@foolip It took a few days to get this PR here. Did not intentionally include the Web Speech API
Will try to not to state the issues at GitHub to prevent being banned here as well people tend to get emotional when talking to them without kid gloves on re their "platform"; and have already been redirected to some page that states "abuse" of the site by simply searching, after the recent acquisition of the site.
Does the test need to be written according to the linked manual test page? And then, does this PR need to be closed and a new PR opened? Can you provide the complete steps necessary for this PR to be incorporated into wpt, to avoid eventually filing another issue for the purpose of navigating this site and
@guest271314 you don't need to have any buttons in the test itself, just instructions that are visible when opening the page that say what the user should do to judge whether it passes or not. Right now that's in JS comments, so putting the instructions in HTML would be good.
Other than that, you just need to get rid of the extra commits so that there's just one file remaining. If you don't want to deal with
@foolip Is this appropriate?
If so, what needs to be done? Place that HTML in own fork and make another PR? Or can the code in this PR be changed?