Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
2590743002:
Add WebVR IDL test (Closed)
DescriptionAdd WebVR IDL test
Based off the IDL test for encrypted media
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/wpt/encrypted-media/idlharness.html
Times out on Android K, but I believe that's expected of IDL tests, as the
encrypted media IDL test also times out.
Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to
fetch() only working with http and https.
Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by
default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move
this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags.
BUG=675325
Committed: https://crrev.com/dbaeb9e3962ced76af7155afbdad67398ba5718e
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#440236}
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 5
Patch Set 2 : Move test, combine files, add expectation #
Total comments: 3
Patch Set 3 : Remove unnecessary untested idls #Patch Set 4 : Actually remove commented lines #Patch Set 5 : See if manually enabling gamepad solves failure #Patch Set 6 : Move expectation to imported/wpt #
Messages
Total messages: 42 (21 generated)
Description was changed from ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Times out on Android K, but I believe that's expected of IDL tests, as the encrypted media IDL test also times out. Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. BUG= ========== to ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Times out on Android K, but I believe that's expected of IDL tests, as the encrypted media IDL test also times out. Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. BUG=675325 ==========
bsheedy@chromium.org changed reviewers: + dglazkov@chromium.org
PTAL
Description was changed from ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Times out on Android K, but I believe that's expected of IDL tests, as the encrypted media IDL test also times out. Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. BUG=675325 ========== to ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. BUG=675325 ==========
Description was changed from ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. BUG=675325 ========== to ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. Tested to run to completion on both Android K and Linux desktop. BUG=675325 ==========
Description was changed from ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. Tested to run to completion on both Android K and Linux desktop. BUG=675325 ========== to ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Times out on Android K, but I believe that's expected of IDL tests, as the encrypted media IDL test also times out. Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. BUG=675325 ==========
dglazkov@chromium.org changed reviewers: + philipj@opera.com, rbyers@chromium.org
Since this is more of an interop test, I think Rick or Philip are better reviewers here. https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/util/fetch.js (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/util/fetch.js:1: (function(self) { Why do you need this fetch polyfill?
ddorwin@chromium.org changed reviewers: + bajones@chromium.org
As mentioned in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675325#c2, we may want to change the directory name to match the module name. Or maybe vice versa. Does anyone know why the modules name is just "vr"? Blink owners, what would you prefer? Most modules directories do not start with "web," but most API names probably aren't called "Web Foo" API either.
leilei@chromium.org changed reviewers: + leilei@chromium.org
https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/idlharness.html (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/idlharness.html:12: <script src=./util/fetch.js></script> IDL file can be within idlharness.html, so fetch.js is not needed. See https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... as example. And https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/blob/873f9680aff66553f84d38f21a038c4534... is the instruction about how to generate IDL from a spec written in HTML
The CQ bit was checked by dglazkov@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
On 2016/12/20 at 02:50:24, ddorwin wrote: > As mentioned in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675325#c2, we may want to change the directory name to match the module name. Or maybe vice versa. Does anyone know why the modules name is just "vr"? Blink owners, what would you prefer? Most modules directories do not start with "web," but most API names probably aren't called "Web Foo" API either. "vr" SGTM.
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
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_...)
Moved tests to virtual/vr/html since there appears to be some issues with enabling WebVR by default for all ContentShell tests. Also added an expectation file - there are a few assertion failures, but I believe they're expected at the moment due to some spec changes, e.g. https://github.com/w3c/webvr/pull/161 https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/idlharness.html (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/idlharness.html:12: <script src=./util/fetch.js></script> On 2016/12/20 06:43:29, Lei Lei wrote: > IDL file can be within idlharness.html, so fetch.js is not needed. > > See > https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... > as example. > > And > https://github.com/w3c/testharness.js/blob/873f9680aff66553f84d38f21a038c4534... > is the instruction about how to generate IDL from a spec written in HTML Done. https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/util/fetch.js (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/util/fetch.js:1: (function(self) { On 2016/12/20 02:31:27, dglazkov wrote: > Why do you need this fetch polyfill? I don't need it in this case, but was following the encrypted media's test as an example. The thinking was that this would eventually be a WPT, so the polyfill might be useful. However, since it looks like there's prior cases of the .idl being included in the .html instead of being fetched, I'll just include it directly and remove fetch's http/https requirement in the process.
https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo... File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/vr/html/idlharness.html (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo... third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/vr/html/idlharness.html:261: idl_array.add_untested_idls("interface HTMLMediaElement {};"); Why do we need to test HTMLMediaElement? Should we add some VR Interfaces? e.g. VRDisplay, Window?
https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo... File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/vr/html/idlharness.html (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo... third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/vr/html/idlharness.html:261: idl_array.add_untested_idls("interface HTMLMediaElement {};"); On 2016/12/20 18:22:17, Lei Lei wrote: > Why do we need to test HTMLMediaElement? > > Should we add some VR Interfaces? e.g. VRDisplay, Window? HTMLMediaElement and ArrayBuffer were leftover from the example, so I've removed them, although they weren't doing anything to affect the test. The VR interfaces are added by the add_idls(...) part, which adds all the interfaces and partial interfaces in the given idl.
lgtm https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo... File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/vr/html/idlharness.html (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo... third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/vr/html/idlharness.html:261: idl_array.add_untested_idls("interface HTMLMediaElement {};"); On 2016/12/20 18:31:06, bsheedy wrote: > On 2016/12/20 18:22:17, Lei Lei wrote: > > Why do we need to test HTMLMediaElement? > > > > Should we add some VR Interfaces? e.g. VRDisplay, Window? > > HTMLMediaElement and ArrayBuffer were leftover from the example, so I've removed > them, although they weren't doing anything to affect the test. > > The VR interfaces are added by the add_idls(...) part, which adds all the > interfaces and partial interfaces in the given idl. Please remove those two lines if not needed.
LGTM also (with one question) - thanks! At some point (soon?) we should really move this test into web-platform-test (and then import it back into blink via LayoutTests/imported/wpt) so that other vendors can use them as well. Presumably that only works ones a virtual test suite is no longer required. Are there plans to have WebVR enabled automatically via the --enable-experimental-web-platform-features flag (which all our LayoutTests already run with)? https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/WebVR.idl (right): https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/WebVR.idl:1: // Archived version of the WebVR spec from Is there a difference between the "archived" version and the live version at https://w3c.github.io/webvr/? In general in blink we generally focus our spec conformance efforts on the living specs and ignore snapshots that can become out-of-date.
On 2016/12/20 18:34:08, Lei Lei wrote: > lgtm > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo... > File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/vr/html/idlharness.html (right): > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/20001/third_party/WebKit/Layo... > third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/virtual/vr/html/idlharness.html:261: > idl_array.add_untested_idls("interface HTMLMediaElement {};"); > On 2016/12/20 18:31:06, bsheedy wrote: > > On 2016/12/20 18:22:17, Lei Lei wrote: > > > Why do we need to test HTMLMediaElement? > > > > > > Should we add some VR Interfaces? e.g. VRDisplay, Window? > > > > HTMLMediaElement and ArrayBuffer were leftover from the example, so I've > removed > > them, although they weren't doing anything to affect the test. > > > > The VR interfaces are added by the add_idls(...) part, which adds all the > > interfaces and partial interfaces in the given idl. > > Please remove those two lines if not needed. Apparently forgot to actually save the file after deleting them. Done.
On 2016/12/20 18:37:28, Rick Byers wrote: > LGTM also (with one question) - thanks! > > At some point (soon?) we should really move this test into web-platform-test > (and then import it back into blink via LayoutTests/imported/wpt) so that other > vendors can use them as well. Presumably that only works ones a virtual test > suite is no longer required. Are there plans to have WebVR enabled > automatically via the --enable-experimental-web-platform-features flag (which > all our LayoutTests already run with)? > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... > File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/WebVR.idl (right): > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... > third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/WebVR.idl:1: // Archived version > of the WebVR spec from > Is there a difference between the "archived" version and the live version at > https://w3c.github.io/webvr/ In general in blink we generally focus our spec > conformance efforts on the living specs and ignore snapshots that can become > out-of-date. There's a CL out right now (crrev.com/2587223003) that sets the status of the WebVR feature to "test", which AFAIK enables it by default for ContentShell tests - is this the same thing? There are some relatively minor differences between the archived version and living specs at the moment. However, the living spec is also not actually valid, and causes the WebIDL parser to throw an error (https://github.com/w3c/webvr/issues/166). We'll update to the living spec once it's valid, and update it regularly as changes are made (there are a bunch of changes planned for v1.2, but nothing quite finalized I believe).
The CQ bit was checked by bsheedy@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
On 2016/12/20 18:45:48, bsheedy wrote: > On 2016/12/20 18:37:28, Rick Byers wrote: > > LGTM also (with one question) - thanks! > > > > At some point (soon?) we should really move this test into web-platform-test > > (and then import it back into blink via LayoutTests/imported/wpt) so that > other > > vendors can use them as well. Presumably that only works ones a virtual test > > suite is no longer required. Are there plans to have WebVR enabled > > automatically via the --enable-experimental-web-platform-features flag (which > > all our LayoutTests already run with)? > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... > > File third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/WebVR.idl (right): > > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTe... > > third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/http/tests/webvr/WebVR.idl:1: // Archived > version > > of the WebVR spec from > > Is there a difference between the "archived" version and the live version at > > https://w3c.github.io/webvr/ In general in blink we generally focus our spec > > conformance efforts on the living specs and ignore snapshots that can become > > out-of-date. > > There's a CL out right now (crrev.com/2587223003) that sets the status of the > WebVR feature to "test", which AFAIK enables it by default for ContentShell > tests - is this the same thing? Not quite the same thing but should be just as good: https://www.chromium.org/blink/runtime-enabled-features Since that's in the CQ perhaps you want to wait for that to land then update this patch to remove the need for a virtual test suite? If you'd rather do that in a follow-up patch that's OK with me too. Alternately you may just want to skip landing this test in blink entirely and go straight to github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests. It's already been reviewed here, so if you put up a pull-request there I can merge it for you without any additional review. We'll still need to check-in the expected failures into the blink tree when it gets imported though. If you'd prefer to land this in blink first and upstream to WPT separately, that's OK with me too. > There are some relatively minor differences between the archived version and > living specs at the moment. However, the living spec is also not actually valid, > and causes the WebIDL parser to throw an error > (https://github.com/w3c/webvr/issues/166). We'll update to the living spec once > it's valid, and update it regularly as changes are made (there are a bunch of > changes planned for v1.2, but nothing quite finalized I believe). Ok.
On 2016/12/20 19:15:38, Rick Byers wrote: > Not quite the same thing but should be just as good: > https://www.chromium.org/blink/runtime-enabled-features > > Since that's in the CQ perhaps you want to wait for that to land then update > this patch to remove the need for a virtual test suite? If you'd rather do that > in a follow-up patch that's OK with me too. > > Alternately you may just want to skip landing this test in blink entirely and go > straight to github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests. It's already been reviewed here, > so if you put up a pull-request there I can merge it for you without any > additional review. We'll still need to check-in the expected failures into the > blink tree when it gets imported though. If you'd prefer to land this in blink > first and upstream to WPT separately, that's OK with me too. I'll wait until we're sure the other patch has been committed. Once it has, I'll submit a pull request and change this CL to only have the -expected.txt file - should that go into LayoutTests/platform/... or directly into LayoutTests/imported/wpt/vr/ ?
And do we still want to go with "vr" for the directory name over "webvr" when submitting to the WPT repo?
On 2016/12/20 19:27:28, bsheedy wrote: > On 2016/12/20 19:15:38, Rick Byers wrote: > > Not quite the same thing but should be just as good: > > https://www.chromium.org/blink/runtime-enabled-features > > > > Since that's in the CQ perhaps you want to wait for that to land then update > > this patch to remove the need for a virtual test suite? If you'd rather do > that > > in a follow-up patch that's OK with me too. > > > > Alternately you may just want to skip landing this test in blink entirely and > go > > straight to github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests. It's already been reviewed > here, > > so if you put up a pull-request there I can merge it for you without any > > additional review. We'll still need to check-in the expected failures into > the > > blink tree when it gets imported though. If you'd prefer to land this in > blink > > first and upstream to WPT separately, that's OK with me too. > > I'll wait until we're sure the other patch has been committed. Once it has, I'll > submit a pull request and change this CL to only have the -expected.txt file - > should that go into LayoutTests/platform/... or directly into > LayoutTests/imported/wpt/vr/ ? Sounds good, thanks. It goes into the imported directory - here's a random (hopefully representative) example: https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... You should also add comment lines to W3CImportExpectations indicating that we are intentionally importing the new vr directory with an "Owners:" line saying who to contact for any questions. https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/W3CImport... Note that we'll need to get a WPT import done to get the test running in blink and we're in the progress of changing how that's done and I'm not exactly sure what the current guidance is - started a thread here: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/platform-predictabilit.... But you can ignore the details of that - we'll get it imported for you (either with the new auto-import system, or manually if necessary). Thank you!
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
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_...)
On 2016/12/20 19:37:33, Rick Byers wrote: > Sounds good, thanks. It goes into the imported directory - here's a random > (hopefully representative) example: > https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... > > You should also add comment lines to W3CImportExpectations indicating that we > are intentionally importing the new vr directory with an "Owners:" line saying > who to contact for any questions. > https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/W3CImport... > > Note that we'll need to get a WPT import done to get the test running in blink > and we're in the progress of changing how that's done and I'm not exactly sure > what the current guidance is - started a thread here: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/platform-predictabilit.... > But you can ignore the details of that - we'll get it imported for you (either > with the new auto-import system, or manually if necessary). > > Thank you! Pull request is up at https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/4379. I've updated this CL to only include the -expected.txt and the edit to W3CImportExpectations.
On 2016/12/21 17:40:44, bsheedy wrote: > On 2016/12/20 19:37:33, Rick Byers wrote: > > Sounds good, thanks. It goes into the imported directory - here's a random > > (hopefully representative) example: > > > https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... > > > > You should also add comment lines to W3CImportExpectations indicating that we > > are intentionally importing the new vr directory with an "Owners:" line saying > > who to contact for any questions. > > > https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/W3CImport... > > > > Note that we'll need to get a WPT import done to get the test running in blink > > and we're in the progress of changing how that's done and I'm not exactly sure > > what the current guidance is - started a thread here: > > > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/platform-predictabilit.... > > But you can ignore the details of that - we'll get it imported for you > (either > > with the new auto-import system, or manually if necessary). > > > > Thank you! > > Pull request is up at https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/4379. I've > updated this CL to only include the -expected.txt and the edit to > W3CImportExpectations. PR landed and change here LGTM. Thanks! You should expect to see the importer import this tomorrow (or maybe a couple days later if the failure that occurred today continues). See https://codereview.chromium.org/user/blink-w3c-test-autoroller@chromium.org and https://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.infra.cron/builders/w3c-test-autoroller. Then we can double-check that it's passing on the blink bots (the importer will add a failing expectation if it sees it fail - but I THINK your expectations file should return it in detecting a pass, if not we should be able to just manually remove the failing expectation).
The CQ bit was checked by rbyers@chromium.org
The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from leilei@chromium.org Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002/#ps100001 (title: "Move expectation to imported/wpt")
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...
CQ is committing da patch.
Bot data: {"patchset_id": 100001, "attempt_start_ts": 1482354001118520,
"parent_rev": "3eea79cb791126a69fe25551a66bc13b36ad7ed2", "commit_rev":
"124a044a38ad8d2a93d0bca106acbef7a8c91543"}
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Times out on Android K, but I believe that's expected of IDL tests, as the encrypted media IDL test also times out. Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. BUG=675325 ========== to ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Times out on Android K, but I believe that's expected of IDL tests, as the encrypted media IDL test also times out. Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. BUG=675325 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002 ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #6 (id:100001)
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Times out on Android K, but I believe that's expected of IDL tests, as the encrypted media IDL test also times out. Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. BUG=675325 Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2590743002 ========== to ========== Add WebVR IDL test Based off the IDL test for encrypted media https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/LayoutTests/imported/... Times out on Android K, but I believe that's expected of IDL tests, as the encrypted media IDL test also times out. Needs to run from an HTTP server (hence being in the http directory) due to fetch() only working with http and https. Relies on the change in crrev.com/2587223003, as WebVR is not enabled by default for testing yet. If that change cannot make it in, will have to move this test to the virtual directory so we can use command line flags. BUG=675325 Committed: https://crrev.com/dbaeb9e3962ced76af7155afbdad67398ba5718e Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#440236} ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Patchset 6 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/dbaeb9e3962ced76af7155afbdad67398ba5718e Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#440236} |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
