LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/claim-not-using-registration.html - Issue 1143293003: Service Worker: Add ServiceWorkerContainer.getRegistrations() method.

Side by Side Diff: LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/claim-not-using-registration.html

Issue 1143293003: Service Worker: Add ServiceWorkerContainer.getRegistrations() method. (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink.git@master

Patch Set: Fix layout tests that affect the new test. Created 5 years, 6 months ago

Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.

Jump to:

View unified diff | Download patch

« no previous file with comments | « no previous file | LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event-after-navigation-within-page.html » ('j') | LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/fetch-event-after-navigation-within-page.html » ('J')
Toggle Intra-line Diffs ('i') | Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')

OLD	NEW
1 <!DOCTYPE html>	1 <!DOCTYPE html>

2 <title>Service Worker: claim client not using registration</title>	2 <title>Service Worker: claim client not using registration</title>

3 <script src="../resources/testharness.js"></script>	3 <script src="../resources/testharness.js"></script>

4 <script src="../resources/testharness-helpers.js"></script>	4 <script src="../resources/testharness-helpers.js"></script>

5 <script src="../resources/testharnessreport.js"></script>	5 <script src="../resources/testharnessreport.js"></script>

6 <script src="resources/test-helpers.js"></script>	6 <script src="resources/test-helpers.js"></script>

	7 <script src="../fetch/resources/fetch-test-helpers.js"></script>

7 <body>	8 <body>

8 <script>	9 <script>

9	10

10 promise_test(function(t) {	11 sequential_promise_test(function(t) {
	falken 2015/06/05 01:36:39 It's not clear to me why sequential_promise_test i It's not clear to me why sequential_promise_test is needed here. The scopes are different so the tests shouldn't collide. Can you explain? jungkees 2015/06/05 02:08:13 While I'd tried quite a few different fixes, I lef While I'd tried quite a few different fixes, I left it this way. Just tested it's working fine with promise_test and changed it back as such.
11 var init_scope = 'resources/blank.html?not-using-init';	12 var init_scope = 'resources/blank.html?not-using-init';

12 var claim_scope = 'resources/blank.html?not-using';	13 var claim_scope = 'resources/blank.html?not-using';

13 var init_worker_url = 'resources/empty.js';	14 var init_worker_url = 'resources/empty.js';

14 var claim_worker_url = 'resources/claim-worker.js';	15 var claim_worker_url = 'resources/claim-worker.js';

15 var claim_worker, claim_registration, frame1, frame2;	16 var claim_worker, claim_registration, frame1, frame2;

16 return service_worker_unregister_and_register(	17 return service_worker_unregister_and_register(

17 t, init_worker_url, init_scope)	18 t, init_worker_url, init_scope)

18 .then(function(registration) {	19 .then(function(registration) {

19 return wait_for_state(t, registration.installing, 'activated');	20 return wait_for_state(t, registration.installing, 'activated');

20 })	21 })

(...skipping 42 matching lines...) Expand 10 before \| Expand all \| Expand 10 after Loading...
63 'Frame1 should not be influenced');	64 'Frame1 should not be influenced');

64 assert_equals(	65 assert_equals(

65 frame2.contentWindow.navigator.serviceWorker.controller.scriptURL,	66 frame2.contentWindow.navigator.serviceWorker.controller.scriptURL,

66 normalizeURL(claim_worker_url),	67 normalizeURL(claim_worker_url),

67 'Frame2 should be controlled by the new registration');	68 'Frame2 should be controlled by the new registration');

68 frame1.remove();	69 frame1.remove();

69 frame2.remove();	70 frame2.remove();

70 return claim_registration.unregister();	71 return claim_registration.unregister();

71 })	72 })

72 .then(function() {	73 .then(function() {

73 return service_worker_unregister_and_done(t, init_scope);	74 return service_worker_unregister(t, init_scope);

74 });	75 });

75 }, 'Test claim client which is not using registration');	76 }, 'Test claim client which is not using registration');

76	77

77 promise_test(function(t) {	78 sequential_promise_test(function(t) {

78 var scope = 'resources/blank.html?longer-matched';	79 var scope = 'resources/blank.html?longer-matched';

79 var claim_scope = 'resources/blank.html?longer';	80 var claim_scope = 'resources/blank.html?longer';

80 var claim_worker_url = 'resources/claim-worker.js';	81 var claim_worker_url = 'resources/claim-worker.js';

81 var installing_worker_url = 'resources/wait-forever-in-install-worker.js';	82 var installing_worker_url = 'resources/empty-worker.js';
	falken 2015/06/05 01:36:39 Xiang: Do you remember why you used wait-forever-i Xiang: Do you remember why you used wait-forever-in-install-worker.js for this? If we want to test claim() for the case of an installing worker, we should add a way to let the worker cleanly unregister, e..g, postMessage to break the waiting forever in install. xiang 2015/06/08 02:55:29 I intended to test claim() failure when there's a Show quoted text On 2015/06/05 01:36:39, falken wrote: > Xiang: Do you remember why you used wait-forever-in-install-worker.js for this? > If we want to test claim() for the case of an installing worker, we should add a > way to let the worker cleanly unregister, e..g, postMessage to break the waiting > forever in install. I intended to test claim() failure when there's a installing longer matched registration. Yes, we should let the worker cleanly unregistered instead of fail timeout or unregister until next registration. And I feel this change is OK, as the longer matched registration might in state of installing/activated... the claim() should fail on this client not matter the worker in which state. BTW, I'm not sure why we not support doom installing worker when new unregister job pushed? falken 2015/06/08 08:04:31 Thanks for the comment Xiang. So it sounds OK to p Show quoted text On 2015/06/08 02:55:29, xiang wrote: > On 2015/06/05 01:36:39, falken wrote: > > Xiang: Do you remember why you used wait-forever-in-install-worker.js for > this? > > If we want to test claim() for the case of an installing worker, we should add > a > > way to let the worker cleanly unregister, e..g, postMessage to break the > waiting > > forever in install. > > I intended to test claim() failure when there's a installing longer matched > registration. Yes, we should let the worker cleanly unregistered instead of fail > timeout or unregister until next registration. > > And I feel this change is OK, as the longer matched registration might in state > of installing/activated... the claim() should fail on this client not matter the > worker in which state. > > BTW, I'm not sure why we not support doom installing worker when new unregister > job pushed? Thanks for the comment Xiang. So it sounds OK to proceed using empty-worker.js. I think doom installing worker doesn't occur on unregister() because we want the register/update/unregister jobs to be a simple FIFO queue of atomic jobs as much as possible, having one job affect another causes complexity and bugs.
82 var frame, claim_worker;	83 var frame, claim_worker, longer_matched_registration;

83 return with_iframe(scope)	84 return with_iframe(scope)

84 .then(function(f) {	85 .then(function(f) {

85 frame = f;	86 frame = f;

86 return navigator.serviceWorker.register(	87 return navigator.serviceWorker.register(

87 claim_worker_url, {scope: claim_scope});	88 claim_worker_url, {scope: claim_scope});

88 })	89 })

89 .then(function(registration) {	90 .then(function(registration) {

90 claim_worker = registration.installing;	91 claim_worker = registration.installing;

91 return wait_for_state(t, registration.installing, 'activated');	92 return wait_for_state(t, registration.installing, 'activated');

92 })	93 })

93 .then(function() {	94 .then(function() {

94 return navigator.serviceWorker.register(	95 return navigator.serviceWorker.register(

95 installing_worker_url, {scope: scope});	96 installing_worker_url, {scope: scope});

96 })	97 })

97 .then(function() {	98 .then(function(registration) {

	99 longer_matched_registration = registration;

98 var channel = new MessageChannel();	100 var channel = new MessageChannel();

99 var saw_message = new Promise(function(resolve) {	101 var saw_message = new Promise(function(resolve) {

100 channel.port1.onmessage = t.step_func(function(e) {	102 channel.port1.onmessage = t.step_func(function(e) {

101 assert_equals(e.data, 'PASS',	103 assert_equals(e.data, 'PASS',

102 'Worker call to claim() should fulfill.');	104 'Worker call to claim() should fulfill.');

103 resolve();	105 resolve();

104 });	106 });

105 });	107 });

106 claim_worker.postMessage({port: channel.port2}, [channel.port2]);	108 claim_worker.postMessage({port: channel.port2}, [channel.port2]);

107 return saw_message;	109 return saw_message;

108 })	110 })

109 .then(function() {	111 .then(function() {

110 assert_equals(	112 assert_equals(

111 frame.contentWindow.navigator.serviceWorker.controller, null,	113 frame.contentWindow.navigator.serviceWorker.controller, null,

112 'Frame should not be claimed when a longer-matched ' +	114 'Frame should not be claimed when a longer-matched ' +

113 'registration exists');	115 'registration exists');

114 frame.remove();	116 frame.remove();

115 return service_worker_unregister_and_done(t, claim_scope);	117 return service_worker_unregister(t, claim_scope);

	118 })

	119 .then(function() {

	120 return longer_matched_registration.unregister();

116 });	121 });

117 }, 'Test claim client when there\'s a longer-matched registration not ' +	122 }, 'Test claim client when there\'s a longer-matched registration not ' +

118 'already used by the page');	123 'already used by the page');

	124 sequential_promise_test_done();
	falken 2015/06/05 01:36:39 Nit: Easier to read with a newline before this. Nit: Easier to read with a newline before this. jungkees 2015/06/05 02:08:13 Resolved by removing this call. Resolved by removing this call.
	125 done();

119	126

120 </script>	127 </script>

OLD	NEW