[chearon]

> Opera switched from Presto to Blink, too

True. But I wonder if there are more special-purpose engines similar to Prince that have been abandoned.

> Did you ever consider integrating with web-platform-tests?

I've run some of the WPT tests manually, but I don't yet have <style> support, and some of them use <script> I think? That's a path I'm wary of (eval()?) but I could have a special mode just for tests.

I did discover lots of weird corners that would be great to make some WPT tests for. Definitely something I want to do!

[Sesse__]

Yes, a _lot_ of WPT tests depend on <script>. But there's also a bunch of ref-tests, where you just check that A and B match pixel for pixel (where B is typically written in the most obvious, dumb way possible). It lets you test advanced features in terms of simple ones. But yes, you'd need selector support in particular.

[nicoburns]

I maintain a standalone web layout engine[0] (currently implementing Flexbox and CSS Grid) which has no scripting support. WPT layout tests using <script> is a major blocker to us running WPT tests against our library. Yoga (used by React Native) is in a similar position.

Do you think the WPT would accept pull requests replacing such tests with equivalent tests that don't use <script> (perhaps using a build script to generate multiple tests instead - or simply writing out the tests longhand)?

I could run against only the ref-tests, but if I can't get full coverage then the WPT seems to provide little value over our own test suite.

[0]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy

[Sesse__]

I don't decide WPT policies (and I honestly don't know who does), but I'm pretty sure using a build script would be right out, as WPT is deeply embedded in a lot of other projects. E.g., if you made a build script, you would need to add support for running that script in Blink and in Gecko and in WebKit, and their multiple different runners, and probably also various CI systems.

As for the second option, I don't actually know. If it becomes 10x as long, I would assume you get a no for maintainability and readability reasons. If it's 20% longer and becomes no less clear, I'd say give it a try with a couple tests first? It's possible that the WPT would be interested in expanding its scope to a wider web platform than just browsers. You would probably never get people to stop writing JS-dependent tests, though, so you would need to effectively maintain this yourself.

Of course, for a bunch of tests you really can't do without <script>, given that a lot of functionality is either _about_ scripting support (e.g. CSSOM), intimately tied to it (e.g. invalidation) or will be tested only rather indirectly by other forms of tests (e.g. computed values, as opposed to used values or specified values or actual values or …).

[gsnedders]

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.