2 testing/web-platform/tests/storage-access-api/ tests are expected TIMEOUT
Categories
(Core :: Privacy: Anti-Tracking, defect, P3)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: jmaher, Unassigned)
References
Details
there are 4 tests in the storage-access-api/ directory, I found 2 are expected timeout and the other 2 are fine.
these tests are failing:
/storage-access-api/hasStorageAccess.sub.window.html
/storage-access-api/requestStorageAccess.sub.window.html
I verified these fail on my local windows 10 machine. For /storage-access-api/requestStorageAccess.sub.window.html I see:
subtest:
[top-level-context] document.requestStorageAccess() should be resolved when called properly with a user gesture
error:
promise_test: Unhandled rejection with value: "error: Action set_permission not implemented"@http://web-platform.test:8000/storage-access-api/requestStorageAccess.sub.window.js:58:15
I am not sure if we need a pref to make these pass, fix the test cases, or if these are not supported.
Also, I suspect these tests should have a different bugzilla component.
:jgraham, can you help get this to the right component.
Comment 1•4 years ago
|
||
We don't support the set_permission API in marionette/WebDriver [1]. Per MDN we are supporting some of the overall permissions spec, so maybe we should implement this part too? jstutte: do you know who owns the permissions work in general?
[1] https://w3c.github.io/permissions/#set-permission-command
Comment 2•4 years ago
|
||
Hi Johann, can you help to triage this better? Thank you!
Comment 3•4 years ago
|
||
We don't support some pieces of the permissions API on purpose, but setting permissions for automation purposes seems.. fine? Implementing that feature should probably live in a separate bug, but I'm not sure where bugs for implementing new WebDriver extension commands should be filed, James, do you know?
In the meantime storageAccessAPI is anti-tracking so I'll move it there.
Comment 5•4 years ago
|
||
Well the actual implementation would live in marionette, so Testing::marionette would be fine. But it could also live in the relevant DOM component for the API since marionette is somewhat an implementation detail.
Comment 6•4 years ago
|
||
Ok, thanks, Permissions API doesn't really have its own component so I'll file it in Testing::marionette for now.
Updated•3 years ago
|
Description
•