Upstream RTCDataChannelEvent and RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent ctor tests

Upstream RTCDataChannelEvent and RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent ctor tests

These are from two recent CLs:
https://codereview.chromium.org/2463953002
https://codereview.chromium.org/2494553002

Note: This CL is a test of the WPT export process. Do not make changes
in LayoutTests/imported/wpt/ without coordination or changes may be
lost.

BUG=657117
Committed: https://crrev.com/02b9edd4ec8f059922e0eebf1e04ddc5c686b778
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#434716}

[foolip, 2016-11-18 16:21:23]

The CQ bit was checked by foolip@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-18 16:22:13]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[foolip, 2016-11-18 16:38:24]

The CQ bit was checked by foolip@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-18 16:39:05]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[foolip, 2016-11-18 16:42:06]

foolip@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ hta@chromium.org, jeffcarp@chromium.org, lunalu@chromium.org

[foolip, 2016-11-18 16:42:06]

hta@, given that you're an owner of this in WPT, can you review?

jeffcarp@, when this is reviewed and bots are green, can you CQ at a time that's
good for you to test this export?

I had to tweak the tests a little bit. I guess this is indicative of some
tensions we'll have around testing what the spec says vs. the tests actually
being useful when nobody has yet implemented a certain thing. Here, testing
e.url would have meant that the test fails for everyone, potentially hiding some
actual problem.

Maybe WPT should have as a policy that all tests should pass on at least one
implementation, or at least be expected to within weeks of landing. Dunno.

[jeffcarp, 2016-11-18 19:11:00]

On 2016/11/18 at 16:42:06, foolip wrote:
> hta@, given that you're an owner of this in WPT, can you review?
> 
> jeffcarp@, when this is reviewed and bots are green, can you CQ at a time
that's good for you to test this export?
> 
> I had to tweak the tests a little bit. I guess this is indicative of some
tensions we'll have around testing what the spec says vs. the tests actually
being useful when nobody has yet implemented a certain thing. Here, testing
e.url would have meant that the test fails for everyone, potentially hiding some
actual problem.
> 
> Maybe WPT should have as a policy that all tests should pass on at least one
implementation, or at least be expected to within weeks of landing. Dunno.

Sounds good, will do.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-18 21:17:55]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-18 21:17:56]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_rel_...)

[lunalu1, 2016-11-21 15:20:37]

lgtm

[hta - Chromium, 2016-11-22 22:06:52]

lgtm, but one question on matter of principle wrt adding wpt tests that chrome
currently fails.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2509983007/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/wpt/webrtc/RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent-constructor.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2509983007/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/wpt/webrtc/RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent-constructor.html:30:
// assert_equals(e.url, 'url');
Shouldn't we just add the assertion and let the test fail?
I don't think we have a system of TODO followups for wpt, do we?

[foolip, 2016-11-23 09:43:08]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2509983007/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/wpt/webrtc/RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent-constructor.html
(right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2509983007/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/wpt/webrtc/RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent-constructor.html:30:
// assert_equals(e.url, 'url');
On 2016/11/22 22:06:52, hta - Chromium wrote:
> Shouldn't we just add the assertion and let the test fail?
> I don't think we have a system of TODO followups for wpt, do we?

The trouble, as I see it, is that it will make the whole test fail, and only by
looking at the order in the test and the failure description can one be
confident that the candidate bit works, which was the point of this test.

If I were king of web-platform-tests, I would require that all tests pass on at
least one implementation or are expected to soon, or that the test itself
documents why it fails everywhere and why it's still useful.

So, I think it's not useful to test url until someone intends to implement it,
and then doing it in a separate test. This does mean that the tests will be less
clean and mirror how implementations evolved, but I think that's better than
tests that fail everywhere :)

[foolip, 2016-11-23 09:47:41]

The CQ bit was checked by foolip@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-23 09:47:49]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-23 10:39:40]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-23 10:39:41]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[jeffcarp, 2016-11-28 18:40:49]

On 2016/11/23 at 09:43:08, foolip wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2509983007/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
> File
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/wpt/webrtc/RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent-constructor.html
(right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2509983007/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo...
>
third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/wpt/webrtc/RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent-constructor.html:30:
// assert_equals(e.url, 'url');
> On 2016/11/22 22:06:52, hta - Chromium wrote:
> > Shouldn't we just add the assertion and let the test fail?
> > I don't think we have a system of TODO followups for wpt, do we?
> 
> The trouble, as I see it, is that it will make the whole test fail, and only
by looking at the order in the test and the failure description can one be
confident that the candidate bit works, which was the point of this test.
> 
> If I were king of web-platform-tests, I would require that all tests pass on
at least one implementation or are expected to soon, or that the test itself
documents why it fails everywhere and why it's still useful.
> 
> So, I think it's not useful to test url until someone intends to implement it,
and then doing it in a separate test. This does mean that the tests will be less
clean and mirror how implementations evolved, but I think that's better than
tests that fail everywhere :)

Just FYI I plan on landing this CL and bringing the patch through the WPT export
process today.

[jeffcarp, 2016-11-28 18:53:52]

The CQ bit was checked by jeffcarp@chromium.org

[jeffcarp, 2016-11-28 18:53:52]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from hta@chromium.org,
lunalu@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2509983007/#ps40001
(title: "update MANIFEST.json")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-28 18:54:43]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-28 21:01:26]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 40001, "attempt_start_ts": 1480359232310070,
"parent_rev": "6b2098d30d10b82418b96be526fcb594d34b4e88", "commit_rev":
"daa7baa388290a838e63543f4875ba9ad242f1bb"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-28 21:01:49]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-28 21:04:34]

Description was changed from

==========
Upstream RTCDataChannelEvent and RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent ctor tests

These are from two recent CLs:
https://codereview.chromium.org/2463953002
https://codereview.chromium.org/2494553002

Note: This CL is a test of the WPT export process. Do not make changes
in LayoutTests/imported/wpt/ without coordination or changes may be
lost.

BUG=657117
==========

to

==========
Upstream RTCDataChannelEvent and RTCPeerConnectionIceEvent ctor tests

These are from two recent CLs:
https://codereview.chromium.org/2463953002
https://codereview.chromium.org/2494553002

Note: This CL is a test of the WPT export process. Do not make changes
in LayoutTests/imported/wpt/ without coordination or changes may be
lost.

BUG=657117

Committed: https://crrev.com/02b9edd4ec8f059922e0eebf1e04ddc5c686b778
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#434716}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-28 21:04:35]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/02b9edd4ec8f059922e0eebf1e04ddc5c686b778
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#434716}