| 06:34 | <hsivonen> | MikeSmith: thanks |
| 13:35 | <wanderview> | annevk: I wonder if it would be possible to spec a test interface that WPT could use to verify things like "protected worker" blocking GC-triggered shutdown of a worker |
| 13:36 | <wanderview> | since we make it so hard to observe its difficult to construct a test with just the public APIs |
| 13:54 | <zcorpan> | wanderview: wouldn't that just test that interface? seems to me that kind of test should be outside wpt |
| 13:55 | <wanderview> | zcorpan: well, when we add new things to the "protected worker" case, the test interface would not change... so we could in fact test that the new conditions are being met |
| 13:55 | <wanderview> | but yes, it depends on the infrastructure being correct |
| 15:26 | <annevk> | wanderview: in theory that should be possible at least, but depends on webdriver integration and interest in making it happen |
| 15:26 | <annevk> | As you already concluded 😊 |
| 15:29 | <wanderview> | it just seems if we care about making GC not-observable, we should have a way of writing tests to verify that |
| 15:46 | <jgraham> | It doesn't depend on WebDriver |
| 15:47 | <jgraham> | Or at least doesn't have to |
| 15:47 | <jgraham> | Some specs like WebUSB define testing interfaces which are DOM APIs only exposed when a test configuration is active |
| 15:48 | <jgraham> | WebDriver support has a considerable advantage in that it allows developers of webapps to perform the same kind of testing |
| 17:09 | <devsnek> | Domenic: why can't lock names start with a hyphen |
| 19:07 | <Domenic> | devsnek: is this about web locks? I dunno, jsbell is the person to ask there |
| 19:08 | <devsnek> | Domenic: kk |
| 19:08 | <devsnek> | also i'm working on asyncIterator on ReadableStream |
| 19:08 | <devsnek> | gonna just open a new pr |
| 19:09 | <Domenic> | Oh awesome, ok, thanks good sir. |