Import web-platform-tests@5dbe45af3ad3a933c03187c72f1c12cbe2877703

Import web-platform-tests@5dbe45af3ad3a933c03187c72f1c12cbe2877703

Using update-w3c-deps in Blink 2fdb258ddf7fa6834750711a10a01d26766b7d46.

Failing test expectations were added for two tests:

 * maxlength.html fails because the internal maxlength 524288 is exposed to
   scripts instead of -1.

 * document.getElementsByName-namespace-xhtml.xhtml fails because
   getElementsByName() tests all elements, while the spec says to only
   include HTML elements in the collection:
   https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#dom-document-getelementsbyname

R=tkent@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/76319e35cea9ab0dc8f44f8a4964538eddabae51
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#364149}

[philipj_slow, 2015-12-09 13:33:11]

The CQ bit was checked by philipj@opera.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-09 13:47:06]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1515563002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1515563002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-09 14:52:22]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-09 14:52:23]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[philipj_slow, 2015-12-09 14:57:17]

PTAL and CQ?

[jsbell, 2015-12-09 20:18:53]

jsbell@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jsbell@chromium.org

[jsbell, 2015-12-09 20:18:54]

lgtm

Do we have a bug on maxLength returning 524288? (I couldn't find one)

[jsbell, 2015-12-09 20:19:03]

The CQ bit was checked by jsbell@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-09 20:20:53]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1515563002/1
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1515563002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-09 20:48:35]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-09 20:50:14]

Description was changed from

==========
Import web-platform-tests@5dbe45af3ad3a933c03187c72f1c12cbe2877703

Using update-w3c-deps in Blink 2fdb258ddf7fa6834750711a10a01d26766b7d46.

Failing test expectations were added for two tests:

 * maxlength.html fails because the internal maxlength 524288 is exposed to
   scripts instead of -1.

 * document.getElementsByName-namespace-xhtml.xhtml fails because
   getElementsByName() tests all elements, while the spec says to only
   include HTML elements in the collection:
  
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#dom-document-getelementsbyname

R=tkent@chromium.org
==========

to

==========
Import web-platform-tests@5dbe45af3ad3a933c03187c72f1c12cbe2877703

Using update-w3c-deps in Blink 2fdb258ddf7fa6834750711a10a01d26766b7d46.

Failing test expectations were added for two tests:

 * maxlength.html fails because the internal maxlength 524288 is exposed to
   scripts instead of -1.

 * document.getElementsByName-namespace-xhtml.xhtml fails because
   getElementsByName() tests all elements, while the spec says to only
   include HTML elements in the collection:
  
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#dom-document-getelementsbyname

R=tkent@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/76319e35cea9ab0dc8f44f8a4964538eddabae51
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#364149}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-09 20:50:15]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/76319e35cea9ab0dc8f44f8a4964538eddabae51
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#364149}

[philipj_slow, 2015-12-09 21:23:19]

On 2015/12/09 20:18:54, jsbell wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> Do we have a bug on maxLength returning 524288? (I couldn't find one)

I didn't look and I didn't file a bug. Do you file bugs for every issue you
discover in imports like these? It seems to me like that would double the amount
of time spent, and a lot of those bugs would never get looked at except as a
part of trying to resolve failing test expectations anyway. Any master plan?

[jsbell, 2015-12-09 21:36:13]

On 2015/12/09 21:23:19, philipj wrote:
> On 2015/12/09 20:18:54, jsbell wrote:
> > lgtm
> > 
> > Do we have a bug on maxLength returning 524288? (I couldn't find one)
> 
> I didn't look and I didn't file a bug. Do you file bugs for every issue you
> discover in imports like these? It seems to me like that would double the
amount
> of time spent, and a lot of those bugs would never get looked at except as a
> part of trying to resolve failing test expectations anyway. Any master plan?

I do try and file bugs - either one-off or per-directory (e.g. for new imports),
or make sure something in the bug tracker is affecting them. I guess mentally
for me the -expected.txt from a WPT is equivalent to a TestExpectations entry;
it's failing, we should track fixing it somewhere.

(Admittedly, anything under imported/ with -expected.txt itself is a signal that
it's failing and should get fixed.)

[philipj_slow, 2015-12-09 21:43:39]

On 2015/12/09 21:36:13, jsbell wrote:
> On 2015/12/09 21:23:19, philipj wrote:
> > On 2015/12/09 20:18:54, jsbell wrote:
> > > lgtm
> > > 
> > > Do we have a bug on maxLength returning 524288? (I couldn't find one)
> > 
> > I didn't look and I didn't file a bug. Do you file bugs for every issue you
> > discover in imports like these? It seems to me like that would double the
> amount
> > of time spent, and a lot of those bugs would never get looked at except as a
> > part of trying to resolve failing test expectations anyway. Any master plan?
> 
> I do try and file bugs - either one-off or per-directory (e.g. for new
imports),
> or make sure something in the bug tracker is affecting them. I guess mentally
> for me the -expected.txt from a WPT is equivalent to a TestExpectations entry;
> it's failing, we should track fixing it somewhere.

Would there be any way to get from an -expected.txt to the bug that's causing
it, like there is for TestExpectations? Should we have a giant tracking bug for
everything failing in LayoutTests/imported/ where one could look for blocking
bugs?

[tkent, 2015-12-10 00:44:30]

On 2015/12/09 at 21:43:39, philipj wrote:
> On 2015/12/09 21:36:13, jsbell wrote:
> > On 2015/12/09 21:23:19, philipj wrote:
> > > On 2015/12/09 20:18:54, jsbell wrote:
> > > > lgtm
> > > > 
> > > > Do we have a bug on maxLength returning 524288? (I couldn't find one)
> > > 
> > > I didn't look and I didn't file a bug. Do you file bugs for every issue
you
> > > discover in imports like these? It seems to me like that would double the
> > amount
> > > of time spent, and a lot of those bugs would never get looked at except as
a
> > > part of trying to resolve failing test expectations anyway. Any master
plan?
> > 
> > I do try and file bugs - either one-off or per-directory (e.g. for new
imports),
> > or make sure something in the bug tracker is affecting them. I guess
mentally
> > for me the -expected.txt from a WPT is equivalent to a TestExpectations
entry;
> > it's failing, we should track fixing it somewhere.
> 
> Would there be any way to get from an -expected.txt to the bug that's causing
it, like there is for TestExpectations? Should we have a giant tracking bug for
everything failing in LayoutTests/imported/ where one could look for blocking
bugs?

There's no official way to associate -expected.txt and bugs.  However, we have
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-xlh6co6QYC-KVof27sVxjA7yuUFvYcaul3vE...
for web-platform-tests/html/.

[philipj_slow, 2015-12-10 10:23:52]

On 2015/12/10 00:44:30, tkent wrote:
> On 2015/12/09 at 21:43:39, philipj wrote:
> > On 2015/12/09 21:36:13, jsbell wrote:
> > > On 2015/12/09 21:23:19, philipj wrote:
> > > > On 2015/12/09 20:18:54, jsbell wrote:
> > > > > lgtm
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do we have a bug on maxLength returning 524288? (I couldn't find one)
> > > > 
> > > > I didn't look and I didn't file a bug. Do you file bugs for every issue
> you
> > > > discover in imports like these? It seems to me like that would double
the
> > > amount
> > > > of time spent, and a lot of those bugs would never get looked at except
as
> a
> > > > part of trying to resolve failing test expectations anyway. Any master
> plan?
> > > 
> > > I do try and file bugs - either one-off or per-directory (e.g. for new
> imports),
> > > or make sure something in the bug tracker is affecting them. I guess
> mentally
> > > for me the -expected.txt from a WPT is equivalent to a TestExpectations
> entry;
> > > it's failing, we should track fixing it somewhere.
> > 
> > Would there be any way to get from an -expected.txt to the bug that's
causing
> it, like there is for TestExpectations? Should we have a giant tracking bug
for
> everything failing in LayoutTests/imported/ where one could look for blocking
> bugs?
> 
> There's no official way to associate -expected.txt and bugs.  However, we have
>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-xlh6co6QYC-KVof27sVxjA7yuUFvYcaul3vE...
> for web-platform-tests/html/.

That's great! I was about to add these two cases, but I see you've already done
so. I'll try to update that sheet with future imports.

[tkent, 2015-12-10 22:59:25]

> > There's no official way to associate -expected.txt and bugs.  However, we
have
> >
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-xlh6co6QYC-KVof27sVxjA7yuUFvYcaul3vE...
> > for web-platform-tests/html/.

BTW, if we import web-platform-tests/dom, we should expand the sheet to cover it
too.  My team is responsible for both of HTML and DOM.

[philipj_slow, 2015-12-11 08:09:52]

On 2015/12/10 22:59:25, tkent wrote:
> > > There's no official way to associate -expected.txt and bugs.  However, we
> have
> > >
>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-xlh6co6QYC-KVof27sVxjA7yuUFvYcaul3vE...
> > > for web-platform-tests/html/.
> 
> BTW, if we import web-platform-tests/dom, we should expand the sheet to cover
it
> too.  My team is responsible for both of HTML and DOM.

I'm working on importing the dom tests, so I'll add you to that review (maybe
next week) and make sure the spreadsheet is updated.