third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/webshare/share-without-user-gesture.html - Issue 2219383002: Require a user gesture to use navigator.share.

Side by Side Diff: third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/webshare/share-without-user-gesture.html

Issue 2219383002: Require a user gesture to use navigator.share. (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@webshare-dictionary

Patch Set: Created 4 years, 4 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 | « third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/webshare/share-types.html ('k') | third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/webshare/NavigatorShare.cpp » ('j') | third_party/WebKit/Source/modules/webshare/NavigatorShare.cpp » ('J')
Toggle Intra-line Diffs ('i') | Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Hide Comments ('s')

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

2 <script src="../resources/testharness.js"></script>	2 <script src="../resources/testharness.js"></script>

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

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

5 <script src="resources/mock-share-service.js"></script>	5 <script src="resources/mock-share-service.js"></script>

6 <script>	6 <script>

7	7

8 share_test((t, mock) => {	8 share_test((t, mock) => {

9 mock.pushShareResult('the title', 'the message', 'error from browser');	9 mock.pushShareResult('the title', 'the message', 'error from browser');
	Matt Giuca 2016/08/08 08:00:06 I think this test should be based on the success t I think this test should be based on the success test, not the error test. That is, it should be a case that would succeed, were it not for the SecurityError. Sam McNally 2016/08/08 09:08:44 Removed this line entirely so the mock will cause Show quoted text On 2016/08/08 08:00:06, Matt Giuca wrote: > I think this test should be based on the success test, not the error test. That > is, it should be a case that would succeed, were it not for the SecurityError. Removed this line entirely so the mock will cause a test failure if the call succeeds. Matt Giuca 2016/08/09 00:09:26 Right, my reading of the code is that it will fail Show quoted text On 2016/08/08 09:08:44, Sam McNally wrote: > On 2016/08/08 08:00:06, Matt Giuca wrote: > > I think this test should be based on the success test, not the error test. > That > > is, it should be a case that would succeed, were it not for the > SecurityError. > > Removed this line entirely so the mock will cause a test failure if the call > succeeds. Right, my reading of the code is that it will fail with "Unexpected call to mojo share method", right? If so, that's great. Sam McNally 2016/08/09 01:24:36 Yes. Show quoted text On 2016/08/09 00:09:26, Matt Giuca wrote: > On 2016/08/08 09:08:44, Sam McNally wrote: > > On 2016/08/08 08:00:06, Matt Giuca wrote: > > > I think this test should be based on the success test, not the error test. > > That > > > is, it should be a case that would succeed, were it not for the > > SecurityError. > > > > Removed this line entirely so the mock will cause a test failure if the call > > succeeds. > > Right, my reading of the code is that it will fail with "Unexpected call to mojo > share method", right? If so, that's great. Yes.
10 return promise_rejects(	10 return promise_rejects(

11 t, new DOMException('error from browser', 'AbortError'),	11 t, new DOMException('Must be handling a user gesture to perform a share re quest.', 'SecurityError'),

12 navigator.share({title: 'the title', text: 'the message'}));	12 navigator.share({title: 'the title', text: 'the message'}));

13 }, 'share with browser-side error');	13 }, 'share with browser-side error');

14	14

15 </script>	15 </script>

OLD	NEW