third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/origin_trials/javascript-insert-token.html - Issue 1833063002: Store the list of trial tokens in OriginTrialContext

Side by Side Diff: third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/origin_trials/javascript-insert-token.html

Issue 1833063002: Store the list of trial tokens in OriginTrialContext (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master

Patch Set: Created 4 years, 9 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

OLD	NEW
(Empty)
	1 <!DOCTYPE html>

	2 <meta charset="utf-8">

	3 <!-- TODO(iclelland): Generate this sample token during the build. The token
	iclelland 2016/03/31 15:00:00 The comment is still valid; should probably be in The comment is still valid; should probably be in the script, though.
	4 below will expire in 2033, but it would be better to always have a token which

	5 is guaranteed to be valid when the tests are run. -->

	6 <script>

	7 var meta = document.createElement('meta');

	8 meta.setAttribute('http-equiv', 'origin-trial');

	9 meta.setAttribute('content', '1\|tZPW/JJ2Sxm4z7k/Eb1/upMsppozWpTwEuGwhgQko0zWS6eb vjQ+EXPP/ftoMX8/PCoDgOS3xlrXElMgDDvbCg==\|http://127.0.0.1:8000\|Frobulate\|2000000 000');

	10 document.head.appendChild(meta);
	iclelland 2016/03/31 15:00:00 Can we define these four lines as a function here Can we define these four lines as a function here and call it, and call again in the onload handler? Marijn Kruisselbrink 2016/04/01 23:54:47 Not done yet. I'm not sure if it really gains us m Show quoted text On 2016/03/31 at 15:00:00, iclelland wrote: > Can we define these four lines as a function here and call it, and call again in the onload handler? Not done yet. I'm not sure if it really gains us much though... Especially with the addition of a <link onerror> test, where calling a function won't be possible anyway. But if you feel there is still value in abstracting it out for the two places where we could share code I'd be happy to do so. iclelland 2016/04/05 17:26:28 I think we should share code -- definitely the opa Show quoted text On 2016/04/01 23:54:47, Marijn Kruisselbrink wrote: > On 2016/03/31 at 15:00:00, iclelland wrote: > > Can we define these four lines as a function here and call it, and call again > in the onload handler? > > Not done yet. I'm not sure if it really gains us much though... Especially with > the addition of a <link onerror> test, where calling a function won't be > possible anyway. But if you feel there is still value in abstracting it out for > the two places where we could share code I'd be happy to do so. I think we should share code -- definitely the opaque token string, if not the snippet of code that attaches it to the document. Marijn Kruisselbrink 2016/04/05 20:56:08 There are still multiple copies of the opaque toke Show quoted text On 2016/04/05 at 17:26:28, iclelland wrote: > On 2016/04/01 23:54:47, Marijn Kruisselbrink wrote: > > On 2016/03/31 at 15:00:00, iclelland wrote: > > > Can we define these four lines as a function here and call it, and call again > > in the onload handler? > > > > Not done yet. I'm not sure if it really gains us much though... Especially with > > the addition of a <link onerror> test, where calling a function won't be > > possible anyway. But if you feel there is still value in abstracting it out for > > the two places where we could share code I'd be happy to do so. > > I think we should share code -- definitely the opaque token string, if not the snippet of code that attaches it to the document. There are still multiple copies of the opaque token string, since not all can be done by javascript the same way, but shared as much code as possible now.
	11 </script>

	12 <title>Test Sample API when trial is enabled</title>

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

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

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

	16 <script src="resources/origin_trials.js"></script>

	17 <script>

	18

	19 // The trial is not enabled by the token above, because it was inserted by

	20 // javascript.

	21 expect_failure();

	22

	23 var after_load_test = async_test("Testing async");

	24 addEventListener('load', () => {

	25 var meta = document.createElement('meta');

	26 meta.setAttribute('http-equiv', 'origin-trial');

	27 meta.setAttribute('content', '1\|tZPW/JJ2Sxm4z7k/Eb1/upMsppozWpTwEuGwhgQko0zW S6ebvjQ+EXPP/ftoMX8/PCoDgOS3xlrXElMgDDvbCg==\|http://127.0.0.1:8000\|Frobulate\|200 0000000');

	28 document.head.appendChild(meta);

	29 assert_idl_attribute(window.internals, 'frobulate');
	iclelland 2016/03/31 15:00:00 Can this be replaced with a call to expect_failure Can this be replaced with a call to expect_failure? Marijn Kruisselbrink 2016/03/31 19:01:48 Not really. expect_failure() creates new tests rat Show quoted text On 2016/03/31 at 15:00:00, iclelland wrote: > Can this be replaced with a call to expect_failure? Not really. expect_failure() creates new tests rather than just implementing assertions, so it would end up associating assertions with the wrong test. But I agree that this test still needs some work/cleanup put in it, and there is probably a way to make it cleaner. iclelland 2016/04/01 15:19:09 Maybe factoring the common code out into a named f Show quoted text On 2016/03/31 19:01:48, Marijn Kruisselbrink wrote: > On 2016/03/31 at 15:00:00, iclelland wrote: > > Can this be replaced with a call to expect_failure? > > Not really. expect_failure() creates new tests rather than just implementing > assertions, so it would end up associating assertions with the wrong test. But I > agree that this test still needs some work/cleanup put in it, and there is > probably a way to make it cleaner. Maybe factoring the common code out into a named function in origin_trials.js would be enough? Marijn Kruisselbrink 2016/04/01 23:54:47 I changed expect_failure to optionally accept a te Show quoted text On 2016/04/01 at 15:19:09, iclelland wrote: > On 2016/03/31 19:01:48, Marijn Kruisselbrink wrote: > > On 2016/03/31 at 15:00:00, iclelland wrote: > > > Can this be replaced with a call to expect_failure? > > > > Not really. expect_failure() creates new tests rather than just implementing > > assertions, so it would end up associating assertions with the wrong test. But I > > agree that this test still needs some work/cleanup put in it, and there is > > probably a way to make it cleaner. > > Maybe factoring the common code out into a named function in origin_trials.js would be enough? I changed expect_failure to optionally accept a test object (when provided it will associate assertions with that test rather than creating its own new tests).
	30 assert_throws("NotSupportedError", () => { window.internals.frobulate; },

	31 'Accessing attribute should throw error');

	32 after_load_test.done();

	33 });

	34 </script>

OLD	NEW