| 09:06 | <ubuntutr> | hi |
| 09:06 | <ubuntutr> | hih |
| 09:06 | <ubuntutr> | hi |
| 09:06 | <ubuntutr> | � � � � |
| 09:06 | <ubuntutr> | ���� |
| 09:07 | <ubuntutr> | ? |
| 11:33 | <nox> | annevk: Took me the time to write my damn comment to realise I had just paraphrased yours. |
| 12:30 | <annevk> | nox: are you me one year ago? |
| 12:34 | <nox> | annevk: https://irccloud.mozilla.com/file/Nf3BBf5Y/C-658VsXoAo3ovC.jpg |
| 12:47 | <nox> | annevk: I keep mentioning the spec because I can’t write tests, and tests should follow the spec even if we expect them to fail because the spec should be changed, right? |
| 12:48 | <nox> | No idea why I can’t write tests, I wanted to say I want to write tests. |
| 12:48 | <nox> | UGGGGGGH I can’t English it’s going to be a long long week. |
| 12:52 | <Ms2ger> | Generally, yes |
| 12:53 | <annevk> | nox: you could write .tentative. tests that assume some new spec |
| 12:54 | <annevk> | nox: sometimes it might even be okay for those to not be tentative and contain a pointer to some issue that has the agreed upon resolution that nobody has made the time for to put in the spec |
| 12:54 | <nox> | annevk: But we don’t know what the new spec should be so would it be useful to test for current spec for now? |
| 12:54 | <annevk> | nox: "it depends" |
| 12:54 | <annevk> | nox: sure |
| 12:54 | <nox> | Ok! |
| 12:54 | <annevk> | nox: assuming the current spec makes sense... |
| 12:55 | <nox> | I think it does, or rather it does on one front and not on the other. |
| 14:29 | <annevk> | Domenic: thanks for the feedback on the event loop refactoring. I replied to a bunch of your feedback to give some additional context that could use follow-up. I might also push out a commit with some of the more trivial fixes that don't require further collaboration. |
| 14:31 | <annevk> | nox: are you planning on working more on this btw? I guess writing tests and then seeing what the model should maybe be? |
| 14:31 | <nox> | annevk: Yes! |
| 14:31 | <annevk> | nox: cool, I'm happy to help a bit down the road, but I'm rather swamped with projects atm |
| 14:31 | <nox> | annevk: Yeah, no worries, that's why I wanted to write tests for current behaviour, |
| 14:32 | <annevk> | That's great to hear |
| 14:32 | <annevk> | thanks |
| 14:32 | <nox> | annevk: then we know exactly how things fail in the current implementation of browsers and I don't need to ping you every 5 minutes about how you think the spec should be changed. :) |
| 14:32 | <annevk> | hah |
| 14:35 | <nox> | annevk: Where should I put such tests? /dom/nodes/Node-append-DocumentFragment.html? |
| 14:36 | <nox> | s/append/appendChild/ |
| 14:36 | <nox> | I could otherwise just add them to Node-appendChild.html. |
| 14:43 | <annevk> | nox: maybe a new file that also has script or style in the name? |
| 14:44 | <annevk> | nox: since it's only observable when specific HTML features are involved |
| 14:46 | <nox> | annevk: I wonder if I shouldn't make multiple files, given I must use async_test in a weird way given some code is passed through dynamically-added scripts. |
| 14:46 | <annevk> | nox: also seems fine, I just wouldn't put this in existing tests until the whole model is better understood and a cemented part of the standards |
| 14:47 | <nox> | Ok |
| 14:48 | <nox> | annevk: Random idea, we should have a js`` thing in WPT tests, which is just a string that contains JS code and that editors can highlight as JS. |
| 18:05 | <annevk> | nox: sorry, missed that, some context please? |
| 18:05 | <annevk> | nox: my editor knows about the script element and .js… |
| 18:09 | <domfarolino> | annevk: To be clear, in https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/4048/files#r249709166, are you referring to the "the below steps will never run" bit |
| 18:19 | <nox> | annevk: Oh that was to set the text contents of a script element through JS code |
| 18:20 | <annevk> | domfarolino: on mobile; the this seems wrong comment? |
| 18:20 | <annevk> | domfarolino: it’s about the added newline |
| 18:22 | <annevk> | In hindsight I should have made that clearer |
| 18:51 | <TabAtkins> | nox: Oh, you just mean having a built-in `js` string tag, which is just `String.raw` but with the semantic that it's JS inside there, so editors can highlight confidently? |
| 18:51 | <nox> | Yes |
| 18:53 | <TabAtkins> | I think editors should go ahead and assume that `js`, `html`, or `css` string tags are those langs, yeah. |
| 19:32 | <domfarolino> | annevk: oh ok thanks |
| 19:48 | <annevk> | nox: oh interesting |
