According to MDN, inline script tags should not have defer/async attributes. But
some do. This ignores those attributes for inline script tags.
(Previously, we were only half ignoring them. We were treating them as inline,
but flagging them as deferred or async, which was causing issues with cleanup)
Fixes: https://github.com/lightpanda-io/browser/issues/1014
ScriptManager should only ever has one in-flight blockingGet. The is_blocking
flag is used to assert this, as well as enforce it in evaluate(). If is_blocking
is true, evaluate() exits.
This doesn't work for async scripts however, as they aren't executed via
evaluate(), but rather execute directly once complete.
This PR changes the execution behavior of async scripts. They are now only
executed in evaluate() (and thus won't execute when is_blocking == true).
However, unlike normal/deferred scripts, async scripts continue to execute in
their completion order (not their declared order).
Fixes https://github.com/lightpanda-io/browser/issues/1016
CDP currently assumes that if we get a page-related notification (like a
request interception, or page lifecycle event), then we must have a session
and page.
But, Target.detachFromTarget can remove the session from the BrowserContext
while still having the page run (I wonder if we should stop the page at this
point??). So, remove these assumptions and make sure we have a page/session
in the handling of page events.
Most CDP drivers have a mechanism to wait for idle network, or an almost idle
network (sometimes called networkIdle2). These are events the browser must emit.
The page will now emit `networkIdle` when we are reasonably sure there's no more
network activity (this requires some slight changes to request interception,
since, I believe, intercepted requests should be considered).
`networkAlmostIdle` is currently _always_ emitted prior to emitting
`networkIdle`. We should tweak this but I can't, at a glance, think of a great
heuristic for when this should be emitted.
Further reducing bouncing between page and server for loop polling. If there is
a page, the page polls. If there isn't a page, the server polls. Simpler.
Fix events.get_timeStamp (was events.get_timestamp, wrong casing).
Rename `newRunner` to `htmlRunner`.
move tests to src/tests (from src/browser/tests). src/runtime and possibly other
parts might want to have html tests too.
Follows up on https://github.com/lightpanda-io/browser/pull/994 and replaces
the jsRunner with a new page.navigation-based test runner.
Currently only implemented for the Window tests, looking for feedback and
converting every existing test will take time - so for a while, newRunner (to be
renamed) will sit side-by-side with jsRunner.
In addition to the benefits outlined in 994, largely around code simplicity and
putting more of the actual code under tests, I think our WebAPI tests
particularly benefit from:
1 - No need to recompile when modifying the html tests
2 - Much better assertions, e.g. you can assert that something is actually an
array, not just a string representation of an array
3 - Ability to test some edge cases (e.g. dynamic script loading)
I've put some effort into testing.js to make sure that, if the encapsulating
zig test passes, it's because it actually passed, not because it didn't run.
For the time being, console tests are removed. I think it's more useful to have
access to the console within tests, than it is to test the console (which is
just a wrapper around log, which is both tested and heavily used).
Depends on https://github.com/lightpanda-io/browser/pull/993
There's currently 3 ways to execute a page:
1 - page.navigate (as used in both the 'fetch' and 'serve' commands)
2 - jsRunner as used in unit tests
3 - main_wpt as used in the WPT runner
Both jsRunner and main_wpt replicate the page.navigate code, but in their own
hack-ish way. main_wpt re-implements the DOM walking in order to extract and
execute <script> tags, as well as the needed page lifecycle events.
This PR replaces the existing main_wpt loader with a call to page.navigate. To
support this, a test HTTP server was added. (The test HTTP server is extracted
from the existing unit test test server, and re-used between the two).
There are benefits to this approach:
1 - The code is simpler
2 - More of the actual code and flow is tested
3 - There's 1 way to do things (page.navigate)
4 - Having an HTTP server might unlock some WPT tests
Technically, we're replacing file IO with network IO i.e. http requests). This
has potential downsides:
1 - The tests might be more brittle
2 - The tests might be slower
I think we need to run it for a while to see if we get flaky behavior.
The goal for following PRs is to bring this unification to the jsRunner.
