[whatwg] URL interop status and reference implementation demos
Anne has kindly given me access to the directory on the server where the url.spec lives. I've started to move some of my work there. https://url.spec.whatwg.org/interop/urltest-results/ Note that the expected results come from: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/url/urltestdata.txt I'd like to suggest that the following test be added: https://github.com/rubys/url/blob/peg.js/reference-implementation/test/moretestdata.txt And that the expected results be changed on the following tests: https://github.com/rubys/url/blob/peg.js/reference-implementation/test/patchtestdata.txt Note: I appear to have direct update access to urltestdata.txt, but I would appreciate a review before I make any updates. - - - I also have a reference implementation I've been working on. First, a basic interface: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/reference-implementation/liveview.html A second interface allows you to override the base: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/reference-implementation/liveview2.html A third interface allows you to see what happens when you call individual setters: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/reference-implementation/liveview3.html Note: while all versions are a work in progress, this is more true for liveview3 than the others. In particular, this was created today, and only has href, protocol, and username roughed in at the moment. The setters also have unit tests: https://github.com/rubys/url/blob/peg.js/reference-implementation/test/urlsettest.js I'm planning to refactor these tests, separating the test data from the code so that other libraries and user agents can test against the same data. Once I do, I'll publish interop test results for these setters too. As a final note, the reference implementation has a list of known differences from the published standard: intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html - Sam Ruby
Re: [whatwg] URL interop status and reference implementation demos
Really exciting stuff :D. I love specs that have reference implementations and strong test suites and am hopeful that as URL gets fixes and updates that these stay in sync. E.g. normal software development practices of not changing anything without a test, and so on. From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby https://url.spec.whatwg.org/interop/urltest-results/ I'd be interested in a view that only contains refimpl, ie, safari, firefox, and chrome, so we could compare the URL Standard with living browsers. I'd like to suggest that the following test be added: https://github.com/rubys/url/blob/peg.js/reference-implementation/test/moretestdata.txt And that the expected results be changed on the following tests: https://github.com/rubys/url/blob/peg.js/reference-implementation/test/patchtestdata.txt Note: I appear to have direct update access to urltestdata.txt, but I would appreciate a review before I make any updates. A pull request with a nice diff would be easy to review, I think? The setters also have unit tests: https://github.com/rubys/url/blob/peg.js/reference-implementation/test/urlsettest.js So good! For streams I am running the unit tests against my reference implementation on every commit (via Travis). Might be worth setting up something similar. As a final note, the reference implementation has a list of known differences from the published standard: intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html Hmm, so this isn't really a reference implementation of the published standard then? Indeed looking at the code it seems to not follow the algorithms in the spec at all :(. That's a bit unfortunate if the goal is to test that the spec is accurate. I guess https://github.com/rubys/url/tree/peg.js/reference-implementation#historical-notes explains that. Hmm. In that case, I'm unclear in what sense this is a reference implementation, instead of an alternate algorithm.
Re: [whatwg] URL interop status and reference implementation demos
On 11/18/2014 06:37 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: As a final note, the reference implementation has a list of known differences from the published standard: intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html Hmm, so this isn't really a reference implementation of the published standard then? Indeed looking at the code it seems to not follow the algorithms in the spec at all :(. That's a bit unfortunate if the goal is to test that the spec is accurate. Let me help by connecting the dots. Bug https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25946 is open to rewrite the URL parser. Comment 8 and 9 endorse the following work in progress: http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html Just today, I integrated my Anolis to Bikeshed work, which is a prerequisite for completing this. The reference implementation is a faithful attempt to implement the reworked parsing logic. In fact, parts of the specification and parts of the reference implementation are generated from a single file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rubys/url/peg.js/url.pegjs Hopefully shortly this all will land in the live version of the spec, meanwhile it attempts to skate to where the puck will be. In each case of a known difference in published results, I've linked to rationale for the change (generally to an indication that Anne agrees). I hope this helps. - Sam Ruby
Re: [whatwg] URL interop status and reference implementation demos
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Sam Ruby wrote: Anne has kindly given me access to the directory on the server where the url.spec lives. I've started to move some of my work there. https://url.spec.whatwg.org/interop/urltest-results/ IMHO it's probably best to keep data like that on personal sites (or on the wiki) rather than on the spec's site. If it's on the spec's site and it starts getting out of date with no-one maintaining it, we'd want to 410 it to reduce confusion, but then the data would be lost, which would be unfortunate. (That's why, for example, I put all my tests and demos on hixie.ch or damowmow.com, rather than on html.spec.whatwg.org.) You could use the wiki; that's essentially defined as the sandbox for the WHATWG, where stuff can easily get stale but isn't supposed to be treated as in any way authoritative (the FAQ notwithstanding). I also have a reference implementation I've been working on. By reference implementation do you mean a normative one? If it's just a regular implementation, then it should definitely not be on the WHATWG site, IMHO, since that would mislead other implementors into thinking it's special. If it's actually intended to be a true reference implementation, then that's interesting; is this intended to replace the spec in due course? Generally I would recommend only putting specs on *.spec.whatwg.org. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
