David,
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:54 PM, David Burns <dbu...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Answered inline below.
>
> On 21 November 2017 at 19:03, Nicholas Alexander <nalexan...@mozilla.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:25 AM, David Burns <dbu...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For the next version of geckodriver I am intending that it not ship a
>>> Linux
>>> 32 bit version of Geckodriver. Currently it accounts of 0.1% of downloads
>>> and we regularly get somewhat cryptic intermittents which are hard to
>>> diagnose.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see the connection between 32-bit geckodriver and the test
>> changes below. Is it that the test suites we run require 32-bit
>> geckodriver, and that's the only consumer?
>>
>
> Linux 32 bit Geckodriver is only used on that platform for testing wdspec
> tests. It is built as part of the Linux 32 bit build and then moved to
> testers.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> *What does this mean for most people?* We will be turning off the WDSpec
>>> tests, a subset of Web-Platform Tests used for testing the WebDriver
>>> specification.
>>
>>
>> Are these WDSpec tests run anywhere? My long play here is to use a Java
>> Web Driver client to drive web content to test interaction with GeckoView,
>> so I'm pretty interested in our implementation conforming to the Web Driver
>> spec ('cuz any Java Web Driver client will expect it to do so). Am I
>> missing something here?
>>
>
> They are currently run on OSX, Windows 32bit and 64bit and Linux 64 bit.
> We are not dropping support for WebDriver. Actually this will allow us to
> focus more on where our users are.
>
Beautiful :)
> As for mobile, geckodriver is designed to speak to marionette over tcp. As
> long as we can speak to the view, probably over adb, geckodriver it can
> then speak to Marionette. This would make the host mostly irrelevant and
> seeing how Linux 32 is barely used its not going to affect any work that
> you do.
>
I have an unusual desire to drive Web Driver from the mobile device
(without having a hosted geckodriver) for Android workflow reasons, but
that's not relevant to this 32-bit issue.
>
>
>>
>> This is all rather vaporish, so if my concerns aren't concrete or
>> immediate enough, I'll accept that.
>>
>
> Hopefully this gives you a little more confidence :)
>
It does! Thanks for clarifying.
Nick
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
