[cssom] Add tests for CSSGroupingRule#insertRule
#17276
Conversation
|
(Needs a rebase to pass CI, due to #17286. Sorry!) |
jugglinmike
force-pushed
the
css-grouping-rule-insert-rule
branch
from
aaf396a
to
4ce782c
Compare
|
No problem. Rebased! |
| var first = groupingRule.cssRules[0].cssText; | ||
|
|
||
| assert_throws('HierarchyRequestError', function() { | ||
| groupingRule.insertRule('@import url ("foo.css");', 0); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There shouldn't be a space between url and (
|
Thanks for your eagle eye, @zcorpan |
|
Spec PR w3c/csswg-drafts#4057 |
|
@zcorpan noted that the two definitions differ in their use of |
| groupingRule.deleteRule('.baz {}', 0); | ||
| } catch (err) {} | ||
|
|
||
| assert_equals(groupingRule.cssRules.wptMarker, 'wpt'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test could pass if the returned object is a new structured clone each time. Add a straight assert_equals on the object directly, too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I based this off of existing CSSOM tests. Asserting object equality will require creating additional references, so I assumed this wasn't done as a way to promote garbage collection.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, yeah, storing a reference would defeat the purpose of testing the effect of GC. But as-is it seems extremely unlikely for a GC to happen in the middle of running this test...
That said, I think this is good enough to merge.
These tests are somewhat contentious due an inconsistency in the CSS specification: w3c/csswg-drafts#3528
jugglinmike
force-pushed
the
css-grouping-rule-insert-rule
branch
from
e31996f
to
98dcdfd
Compare
|
Thanks for the review, @zcorpan. The spec change was accepted today, so I'll merge this myself. |
These tests are somewhat contentious due an inconsistency in the CSS
specification:
w3c/csswg-drafts#3528