Closed
Bug 1022181
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Mobile ID Tests
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Device Interfaces, defect)
Core
DOM: Device Interfaces
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla33
People
(Reporter: ferjm, Assigned: ferjm)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: ft:loop)
Attachments
(2 files, 4 obsolete files)
5.04 KB,
patch
|
sicking
:
review+
lmandel
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
44.99 KB,
patch
|
jedp
:
review+
lmandel
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
No description provided.
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → ferjmoreno
Updated•10 years ago
|
Whiteboard: ft:loop
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
Sorry for the late here, I am finding several issues with mochitests and xpcshell tests in b2g :(...
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
Fernando - Can you get tests written to support bug 1022193 that can be uplifted at the same time?
Flags: needinfo?(ferjmoreno)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8445845 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8451046 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8451494 -
Flags: review?(jed+bmo)
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8445844 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8451621 -
Flags: review?(jonas)
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8451494 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8451494 -
Flags: review?(jed+bmo)
Attachment #8451622 -
Flags: review?(jed+bmo)
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8451622 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 2: Mobile ID Service tests
Review of attachment 8451622 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I must confess I have not scrutinized the sequence of spied calls in minute detail. To do so, I will need to get to know the state machine better. If you want extra scrutiny of those subtle sequences, please let me know and I will dig deeper.
Always nice to see a substantial test suite such as this. With a few nits and questions addressed, r=me.
Thanks, Fernando.
::: services/mobileid/tests/xpcshell/test_mobileid_manager.js
@@ +40,5 @@
> +const iccId = "aIccId";
> +const mnc = "aMnc";
> +const mcc = 214;
> +const operator = "aOperator";
> +const certificate = "eyJhbGciOiJEUzI1NiJ9.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."
I don't have particularly strong feelings about it, but it would make it slightly easier to read the tests below if these names were capitalised (as you do for DEBUG and GET_ASSERTION*). Alternately, stick a 'k' at the beginning of each, as you do below with kMobileIdentityClient etc.?
@@ +145,5 @@
> + },
> +
> + startFlow: function() {
> + this._spy("startFlow", arguments);
> + Promise.defer();
Pardon my ignorance and please enlighten me if I'm missing a subtle use of Promise.defer(), but do these calls do anything?
@@ +196,5 @@
> +
> + getByOrigin: function() {
> + this._spy("getByOrigin", arguments);
> + Promise.defer();
> + let result = this._options.getByOriginResult || this._getByOriginResult;
You don't use 'result'
@@ +341,5 @@
> +}) {
> + let XULAppInfoFactory = {
> + createInstance: function (outer, iid) {
> + if (outer != null)
> + throw Cr.NS_ERROR_NO_AGGREGATION;
nit: squiggly brackets for 'if' consequent
@@ +357,5 @@
> +
> +// Unregister mocks and restore original code.
> +do_register_cleanup(function() {
> + MobileIdentityManager.credStore = kMobileIdentityCredStore;
> + MobileIdentityManager.client = kMobileIdentityClient;
Your tests also modify the iccInfo and ui properties. I believe do_register_cleanup() at the top level is only run after the last test in the file has been executed. You can define the cleanup function at the top level and invoke do_register_cleanup(cleanup) at the beginning of each test?
Attachment #8451622 -
Flags: review?(jed+bmo) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8451621 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 1: DOM tests
I'm asking also Olli for r? because this is blocking the uplift of a few patches. Thanks!
Attachment #8451621 -
Flags: review?(bugs)
Attachment #8451621 -
Flags: review?(jonas) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8451621 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 1: DOM tests
Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]: Mobile Identity
[User impact if declined]: Potential regressions
[Describe test coverage new/current, TBPL]: These are the tests :)
[Risks and why]: None, just tests
[String/UUID change made/needed]: None
Attachment #8451621 -
Flags: review?(bugs) → approval-mozilla-aurora?
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8451622 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2edd10045963
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/05e7b540b5c1
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla33
Comment 14•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8451621 [details] [diff] [review]
Part 1: DOM tests
Aurora+
Attachment #8451621 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8451622 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•10 years ago
|
||
Thanks Lawrence.
Before uplifting this patch, bug 1022193 and bug 1026999 needs to land in Aurora.
Comment 16•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/620e68b0053d
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/bcd461c3bb21
status-b2g-v2.0:
--- → fixed
status-b2g-v2.1:
--- → fixed
status-firefox31:
--- → wontfix
status-firefox32:
--- → fixed
status-firefox33:
--- → fixed
Updated•10 years ago
|
Blocks: mobileid-tests
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•