fast/forms/datalist/input-list.html is failing on all EFL platforms.
Created attachment 208800 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 208800 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=208800&action=review > LayoutTests/platform/efl/fast/forms/datalist/input-list-expected.txt:10 > -FAIL datalist.className should be former. Threw exception TypeError: 'null' is not an object (evaluating 'datalist.className') > +FAIL datalist.className should be former. Threw exception TypeError: null is not an object (evaluating 'datalist.className') > FAIL document.getElementById("text").list should be [object HTMLDataListElement]. Was null. Chris, is this fine although result mentioned FAIL ?
(In reply to comment #2) > (From update of attachment 208800 [details]) > View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=208800&action=review > > > LayoutTests/platform/efl/fast/forms/datalist/input-list-expected.txt:10 > > -FAIL datalist.className should be former. Threw exception TypeError: 'null' is not an object (evaluating 'datalist.className') > > +FAIL datalist.className should be former. Threw exception TypeError: null is not an object (evaluating 'datalist.className') > > FAIL document.getElementById("text").list should be [object HTMLDataListElement]. Was null. > > Chris, is this fine although result mentioned FAIL ? It was already FAIL before so it is not any worse IMO.
Comment on attachment 208800 [details] Patch Ryuan wants to skip it, which is indeed the right approach IMO. So r-.
(In reply to comment #4) > (From update of attachment 208800 [details]) > Ryuan wants to skip it, which is indeed the right approach IMO. So r-. I doubt about skipping this test. This test has test cases for all input type="test/color/speech/email/range/search/url/date/time/week/..........." in efl datalist is supported only for input type="email/range/search/url" So this test is used as test for input type="email/range/search/url". for these type it succeeds.For other type we have FAIL as xx-expected.txt. WhenEver we implement datalist UI for new type we just need to change expected output from FAIL to PASS.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (From update of attachment 208800 [details] [details]) > > Ryuan wants to skip it, which is indeed the right approach IMO. So r-. > > I doubt about skipping this test. > This test has test cases for all input type="test/color/speech/email/range/search/url/date/time/week/..........." > > in efl datalist is supported only for input type="email/range/search/url" > > So this test is used as test for input type="email/range/search/url". for these type it succeeds.For other type we have FAIL as xx-expected.txt. > > WhenEver we implement datalist UI for new type we just need to change expected output from FAIL to PASS. Right, I overlooked that it was testing all the input types. Then, rebaselining makes sense since we can only improve the situation gradually. I say let's land this. BTW, this is a gardening patch so you don't need review. Just get rid of the "reviewed by" line in the Changelog and add "Unreviewed" to your Changelog.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > (From update of attachment 208800 [details] [details] [details]) > > > Ryuan wants to skip it, which is indeed the right approach IMO. So r-. > > > > I doubt about skipping this test. > > This test has test cases for all input type="test/color/speech/email/range/search/url/date/time/week/..........." > > > > in efl datalist is supported only for input type="email/range/search/url" > > > > So this test is used as test for input type="email/range/search/url". for these type it succeeds.For other type we have FAIL as xx-expected.txt. > > > > WhenEver we implement datalist UI for new type we just need to change expected output from FAIL to PASS. > > Right, I overlooked that it was testing all the input types. Then, rebaselining makes sense since we can only improve the situation gradually. I say let's land this. BTW, this is a gardening patch so you don't need review. Just get rid of the "reviewed by" line in the Changelog and add "Unreviewed" to your Changelog. OK, I just focused "FAIL" and does not consider gradual improvement. I thought that skipped test is easier to find what is missing for EFL port.
Created attachment 208903 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 208903 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=208903&action=review > LayoutTests/ChangeLog:3 > + <https://webkit.org/b/119784> [EFL] fast/forms/datalist/input-list.html is failing This does not look right. Please regenerate the Changelog. > LayoutTests/ChangeLog:5 > + [EFL] Unreviwed gardening. "Unreviewed"
Created attachment 208909 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 208909 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=208909&action=review > LayoutTests/ChangeLog:5 > + [EFL] Unreviewed gardening. No "[EFL]" as this is not a bug title ("Unreviewed EFL gardening, blablabla." would be OK though). Also please add a quick description of your change. We cannot land changes without Changelog as per WK policy.
Created attachment 208917 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 208917 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 208917 Committed r154177: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/154177>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.