webview_deno VS wpt

By the way, I was using Deno + WebView 1.2k stars, and it's working fine, but my end-users need to install the WebView runtimes... so it wasn't portable. while WebUI is totally portable.

The most updated webview bindings I know of for deno: https://github.com/webview/webview_deno

It's likely you will find some hiccups in latest deno release because it uses rust plug-ins and they are getting overhauled at the moment. Maybe a few more months before getting stabilized.

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.

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

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.

> there are zero test suites you can use for reference comparison.

What about W3C's web-platform-tests suite [1]?

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

The only thing I'm aware of is the web-platform-tests project, which does host an online version of their tool, but it has 45,000 tests. That might have value for you as a browser engine developer, but it's not gonna be a great marketing tool.