From eaf13e35ecd4b35b25fd621e71469e7b5e647106 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jeremy Scheff Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:17:26 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Update test stats - nicely done, non-Microsoft browser vendors! --- README.md | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 8ff9384f..caa26071 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -57,19 +57,19 @@ When importing individual classes directly (like `var IDBKeyRange = require("fak ## Quality -Here's a comparison of fake-indexeddb and real browser IndexedDB implementations on [the W3C IndexedDB test suite](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/IndexedDB) as of April 28, 2017: +Here's a comparison of fake-indexeddb and real browser IndexedDB implementations on [the W3C IndexedDB test suite](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/IndexedDB) as of March 14, 2019: Implementation | Percentage of files that pass completely --- | --- -Firefox 53 | 93% -Chrome 57 | 92% -fake-indexeddb 2.0 | 88% -Safari 10 | 83% -Edge 14 | 59% +Chrome 73 | 99% +Firefox 65 | 97% +Safari 12 | 92% +fake-indexeddb 2 | 85% +Edge 18 | 61% For browsers, I ran http://w3c-test.org/tools/runner/index.html and counted the passes. For fake-indexeddb, I ran `npm run test-w3c`. -88% is pretty good, right? Especially considering that fake-indexeddb runs in Node.js where failure is guaranteed for tests involving browser APIs like Web Workers. There are definitley still some weak points of fake-indexeddb, all described in `src/test/web-platform-tests/run-all.js`. Your app will probably run fine, though. +85% is pretty good, right? Especially considering that fake-indexeddb runs in Node.js where failure is guaranteed for tests involving browser APIs like Web Workers. There are definitley still some weak points of fake-indexeddb, most of which are described in `src/test/web-platform-tests/run-all.js`. Your app will probably run fine, though. ## Potential applications: