-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add a variant test for script scheduling #47018
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
<div id="log"></div> | ||
<p>This test is similar to <a href="128.html">128.html</a>, but here the parent script is non-parser-inserted all along.</p> | ||
<script> | ||
var t = async_test(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't need an async test here right? Can we just do this all in a sync test?
var t = async_test(); | ||
t.step(function() { | ||
log("inline script #1"); | ||
var script = document.createElement("script"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Something other than var here and below?
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ | |||
<!DOCTYPE html> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, you might want to see https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/master/dom/nodes/insertion-removing-steps/Node-appendChild-script-in-script.tentative.html. It's related to whatwg/dom#1261 and whatwg/html#10188, and once the latter lands, I think we'll need a different set of expectations corresponding with the simpler spec.
In fact, I'm wondering if we don't even need the test in this PR once we make the existing one I linked to above, non-tentative. Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The one you linked to is basically the same as 128, right, in that it relies on the parser-inserted script s1 being unflagged as parser-inserted? So I think this variant still has some small but nonzero value compared to either of them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So I think this variant still has some small but nonzero value compared to either of them.
Yep, that may well address the point about whether we should remove this test or not. But I still think it could be good to update the expectations to match what we're pursuing in HTML regarding script scheduling + children changed events.
It took me a while to figure out why 128 worked at all (the script I thought was parser-inserted wasn't anymore at the point of test), and by that time I'd already added 151.
Note that the order of execution of scripts 2 and 3 is in flux (ref whatwg/dom#1261), but it should at least be consistent between the 128 and 151.