third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/compositing/video/video-reflection.html - Issue 2257043002: Remove video-test.js dependency from video-reflection.html

Side by Side Diff: third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/compositing/video/video-reflection.html

Issue 2257043002: Remove video-test.js dependency from video-reflection.html (Closed) Base URL: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git@master

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

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

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

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

4 <script src="../../media/media-file.js"></script>	4 <script src="../../media/media-file.js"></script>

5 <!-- TODO(foolip): Convert test to testharness.js. crbug.com/588956	5 <style>

6 (Please avoid writing new tests using video-test.js) -->	6 video {

7 <script src="../../media/video-test.js"></script>	7 -webkit-box-reflect: below 0px;

8 <script type="text/javascript">	8 border: 3px solid red;

9 var testedOnce = false;	9 }

10 if (window.testRunner) {	10 </style>

11 window.testRunner.dumpAsTextWithPixelResults();	11 <video></video>

12 window.testRunner.waitUntilDone();	12 <script>

13 }	13 async_test(function(t) {
	fs 2016/08/18 08:50:45 Not sure if testharness makes much sense here - th Not sure if testharness makes much sense here - this test appears to be essentially visual. testExpected() is the only thing from video-test.js right? Could just do away with that. (Other simplifications look good though, so we could keep those.) Srirama 2016/08/18 10:04:03 Acknowledged. Show quoted text On 2016/08/18 08:50:45, fs wrote: > Not sure if testharness makes much sense here - this test appears to be > essentially visual. testExpected() is the only thing from video-test.js right? > Could just do away with that. (Other simplifications look good though, so we > could keep those.) Acknowledged.
14 function runTest() {	14 testRunner.dumpAsTextWithPixelResults();

15 video = document.getElementById('video');	15 video = document.querySelector('video');

16 video.addEventListener('canplaythrough', canplaythrough, true);	16 video.src = findMediaFile('video', '../../media/content/test');

17 video.src = findMediaFile('video', '../../media/content/test');

18 }

19 function canplaythrough(e) {

20 var video = e.target;

21 video.addEventListener('seeked', seeked, true);

22 video.currentTime = 1;

23 }

24 function seeked(e) {

25 if (!testedOnce) {

26 testExpected('video.currentTime', 1);

27	17

28 if (window.testRunner)	18 testRunner.waitUntilDone();

29 setTimeout(function() { testRunner.notifyDone(); }, 150) ;	19 video.onseeked = t.step_func(function() {

	20 video.onseeked = null;

	21 assert_equals(video.currentTime, 1);

30	22

31 testedOnce = true;	23 setTimeout(t.step_func(function() { testRunner.notifyDone(); }), 150);
	fs 2016/08/18 08:50:45 This timeout looks very gratuitous - could we perh This timeout looks very gratuitous - could we perhaps use runAfterLayoutAndPaint (from resources/run-after-layout-and-paint.js) instead? Srirama 2016/08/18 10:04:03 Done. Show quoted text On 2016/08/18 08:50:45, fs wrote: > This timeout looks very gratuitous - could we perhaps use runAfterLayoutAndPaint > (from resources/run-after-layout-and-paint.js) instead? Done.
32 }	24 });

33 }	25

34 </script>	26 video.currentTime = 1;

35 <style>	27 });

36 video {	28 </script>

37 -webkit-box-reflect: below 0px;

38 border: 3px solid red;

39 }

40 </style>

41 </head>

42 <body onload="runTest()">

43 <video id="video"></video>

44 </body>

45 </html>

OLD	NEW

« no previous file with comments | « no previous file | third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/compositing/video/video-reflection-expected.txt » ('j') | no next file with comments »