incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jesse MacFadyen <>
Subject Re: [2/2] spec commit: Adding different bridge benchmarking to the Automated Mobile Spec Tests
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:37:52 GMT
These tests should live in their respective platforms. Exposing it as
an API gives away our sausage recipe, and no-one should ever care,
outside of the bridge developer.


On 2012-09-11, at 2:21 PM, Filip Maj <> wrote:

> Nice work on that Joe.
> I definitely support enumerating the bridge modes.
> I'm thinking this should be a standard field that platforms can override
> on a per-platform basis. In the top-level "cordova" module perhaps?
> On 9/11/12 6:26 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Joe Bowser <> wrote:
>>> Hey
>>> Responses inline:
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Andrew Grieve <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hey Joe,
>>>> Wondering why make this into a jasmine test? Does it make the results
>>> more
>>>> easily captured?
>>> Yes, it also makes other known bugs glaringly obvious, like the
>>> numerous bugs with JS_OBJECT and the Callback Server. Now, instead of
>>> having to go through repro steps, I can just run this test.
>>> It also makes it easier to run a small amount of tests on a wide range
>>> of devices quickly instead of manually having to pick modes, and it in
>>> theory could work with the Continuous Integration that we're hoping to
>>> have in our office as well. I was doing testing on the HTC One X that
>>> arrived on my desk and my results looked different enough from the
>>> Galaxy Nexus that I wanted this. I was able to run through a
>>> half-dozen Android devices to see if the results on this end were
>>> similar to the ones that you had in the ticket.
>> That's awesome!!
>>>> Other thing I'm wondering is if this should use some JS reflection to
>>> detect
>>>> the available bridge modes since they are different on iOS and
>>> non-existant
>>>> on others (mobile-spec tests are supposed to work on all platforms
>>> correct?)
>>> It probably would make sense for the bridges to be enumerated for
>>> readability.  So far, only iOS and Android have configurable bridges,
>>> right?  I think this test make sense here, but not added to the "Run
>>> All Tests" page.
>> Sounds good.

View raw message