Re: Intent to unship: Linux 32bit Geckodriver executable

[Nicholas Alexander]

David,

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:54 PM, David Burns  wrote:

> Answered inline below.
>
> On 21 November 2017 at 19:03, Nicholas Alexander 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:25 AM, David Burns  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

Re: Intent to unship: Linux 32bit Geckodriver executable

[David Burns]

Answered inline below.

On 21 November 2017 at 19:03, Nicholas Alexander 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:25 AM, David Burns  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.

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.


>
> 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 :)

David
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to unship: Linux 32bit Geckodriver executable

[Nicholas Alexander]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:25 AM, David Burns  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?


> *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?

This is all rather vaporish, so if my concerns aren't concrete or immediate
enough, I'll accept that.


> Testharness.js and reftests in the Web-Platform tests will
> still be working as they use Marionette via another means.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions.
>

Thanks!
Nick
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Intent to unship: Linux 32bit Geckodriver executable

[David Burns]

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.

*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. Testharness.js and reftests in the Web-Platform tests will
still be working as they use Marionette via another means.

Let me know if you have any questions.

David
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform