node-v0.x-archive VS wpt

On 16 February 2009, a GitHub commit was made. By a person who would later turn out to be the creator of two of the most successful, impactful, and standard tech platforms the world has ever seen. Who is he? Let's explore.

Based on several issues in the Node repository (nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#7729, nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#5488, nodejs/node#5436) this error can occur when a DNS server fail to respond, perhaps due to it rate-limiting requests. Reducing DNS lookups can reduce or eliminate these errors.

I don't know how node is processing the stream and buffering or not buffering. I just invested the past few hours into researching Node.js buffering and not buffering read(). There are more than one issue regarding the subject-matter, e.g., https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/2972, https://github.com/nodejs/node-v0.x-archive/issues/4000, https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/6379. From what I gather Node.js blames the process itself. However, I run the same algorithm using Python, C++, C, QuickJS JavaScript engine where the RSS does not exponentially increase during usage.

setTimeout implementation: https://github.com/nodejs/node-v0.x-archive/blob/master/lib/timers.js

...or something similar to that. I mean, it's pretty close to that. You can see for yourself if you want. These lines there are exactly what they do: They set thisValueto point to module.exports and then they execute your file/module with that as the value of this. (Only they have some additional helper stuff like ReflectApply because there are some additional complexities now with modules. In the older versions of the code you could see the apply call directly there.

I was referring to node <0.1.30[1] which did have promises for a while. largely from jQuery deferred, which were ungood in a couple ways I don't remember. but also remarkably similar.

I still largely think kris kowal building the "Q" promise library is what made promises interesting, what surfaced the idea that we might want to first-class our completeablea/futures. I know kris had some specific inspirations but I forget what.

pains me somewhat to this day that promises ultimately became somewhat un-value like, that handlers don't get to see what it was resolving. all the chain/spawn discussion, the functional promise folk: they got rolled by those insisting we had to target only the lowest rings of the developership, and that allowing more potent systems was unacceptable. wish I could find those es-discusa threads, for the powerful sorrow of the afteath, what we are stuck with, in it's so lites form, haunts me. especially as we double back a decade latter & invent controllers & signals toanage our promises. which we would have had for free.

way off topic now. forgive me my late night ramblings.

[1] https://github.com/nodejs/node-v0.x-archive/blob/v0.1.30/Cha...

To reply mostly with my WPT Core Team hat off, mostly summarising the history of how we've ended up here:

A build script used by significant swaths of the test suite is almost certainly out; it turns out people like being able to edit the tests they're actually running. (We _do_ have some build scripts — but they're mostly just mechanically generating lots of similar tests.

A lot of the goal of WPT (and the HTML Test Suite, which it effectively grew out of) has been to have a test suite that browsers are actually running in CI: historically, most standards test suites haven't been particularly amenable to automation (often a lot of, or exclusively, manual tests, little concern for flakiness, etc.), and with a lot of policy choices that effectively made browser vendors choose to write tests for themselves and not add new tests to the shared test suite: if you make it notably harder to write tests for the shared test suite, most engineers at a given vendor are simply going to not bother.

As such, there's a lot of hesitancy towards anything that regresses the developer experience for browser engineers (and realistically, browser engineers, by virtue of sheer number, are the ones who are writing the most tests for web technologies).

That said, there are probably ways we could make things better: a decent number of tests for things like Grid use check-layout-th.js (e.g., https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/f763dd7d7b7ed...).

One could definitely imagine a world in which these are a test type of their own, and the test logic (in check-layout-th.js) can be rewritten in a custom test harness to do the same comparisons in an implementation without any JS support.

The other challenge for things like Taffy only targeting flexbox and grid is we're unlikely to add any easy way to distinguish tests which are testing interactions with other layout features (`position: absolute` comes to mind!).

My suggestion would probably be to start with an issue at https://github.com/web-platform-tests/rfcs/issues, describing the rough constraints, and potentially with one or two possible solutions.

It also helps that there are tests

https://web-platform-tests.org/

You can see how Mozilla tests the compliance of their built-in elements in the Gecko repository (the ok and is assertions are defined in their SimpleTest testing framework). And here's the Web Platform Tests' reflection harness, with data for each built-in element in sibling files, that almost every browser pass.

We have our own test suite (orginally derived from the test suite of Meta's Yoga layout library [0]) which consists of text fixtures that are small HTML snippets [1] and a test harness [2] that turns those into runnable tests, utilising headless chrome both to parse the HTML and to generate the assertions based on the layout that Chrome renders (so we are effectively comparing our implementation against Chrome). We currently have 686 generated tests (covering both Flexbox and CSS Grid).

We would like to utilise the Web Platform Test suite [3], however these are not in a standard format and many of the tests require JavaScript so we are not currently able to do that.

[0]: https://github.com/facebook/yoga

[1]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/tree/main/test_fixtures

[2]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/tree/main/scripts/gentes...

[3]: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/css/cs...

The metrics are based on the passing rate for the web-platform-tests (WPT) project, the automated test suite for web standards. The completion rate is categorised as either stable, or experimental. There is no definition of what experimental entails, presumably features that are behind experimental flags are included. Stable is better to go off in any case.

Depends on what you are trying to achieve. You can run WPT MSE https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/media-source and WebCodecs https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/webcodecs tests manually to learn by doing.

Manually running the tests in Web Platform Tests should keep you busy.

Not sure what you mean? I referred to Web API's, which generally means Web platform API's; that is Web platform API's tested by Web Platform Tests https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.

If you want CSS to be the same across browsers then help implement CSS tests and file bugs

https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/Overview.en.html

https://web-platform-tests.org/

better specs are great, but tests will actually find the edge cases and lead to more convergence.

Run all these tests locally https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/dom.