Chromium Code Reviews| Index: LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/unregister.html |
| diff --git a/LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/unregister.html b/LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/unregister.html |
| index ae3bcae6ea185f0c1e36c7225a8d0a9e8e5bec45..ed4a100a86abd1f529efafe4f6f39bcc13be9bbd 100644 |
| --- a/LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/unregister.html |
| +++ b/LayoutTests/http/tests/serviceworker/unregister.html |
| @@ -28,8 +28,10 @@ async_test(function(t) { |
| return registration.unregister(); |
| }) |
| .then(function(value) { |
| - assert_equals(value, undefined, |
| - 'unregistering twice should resolve with no value'); |
| +// FIXME: This value must be false in spec, but the implementation is wrong. |
|
horo
2014/08/29 07:37:29
nit: indent please
nhiroki
2014/09/01 01:45:12
"... is wrong" seems to be negative. How about "..
nhiroki
2014/09/01 01:46:55
(because this implementation was correct before :)
shimazu
2014/09/01 05:29:42
Done.
shimazu
2014/09/01 05:29:42
Done.
|
| +// See: https://crbug.com/390894#c16 |
| + assert_equals(value, true, |
| + 'unregistering twice should resolve with false, but now this will be true'); |
|
nhiroki
2014/09/01 01:45:11
We should probably delete this check for now since
|
| t.done(); |
| }) |
| .catch(unreached_rejection(t)); |
| @@ -43,8 +45,8 @@ async_test(function(t) { |
| return registration.unregister(); |
| }) |
| .then(function(value) { |
| - assert_equals(value, undefined, |
| - 'unregistration should resolve with no value'); |
| + assert_equals(value, true, |
| + 'unregistration should resolve with true'); |
| t.done(); |
| }) |
| .catch(unreached_rejection(t)); |
| @@ -65,7 +67,7 @@ async_test(function(t) { |
| return navigator.serviceWorker.unregister(); |
| }) |
| .then(function(value) { |
| - assert_equals(value, undefined, |
| + assert_equals(value, true, |
| 'unregister with default scope should succeed'); |
| return state_promise; |
| }) |