This site heavily relies on bug reports created by its readers. Anyone can report a bug and be published.
Main navigation:
Search reports by browser:
Some bug test pages I receive don't work in all browsers. For instance, I've received one application/xhtml+xml-mimed page, and one page that mysteriously doesn't work in Explorer Windows (though in both cases the bug report is about Opera).
Are these pages good bug test pages?
Obviously, there are test pages that cannot work in all browsers. If the bug applies to, say, the handling of position: fixed the test page will never work in certain browsers. These cases are clear.
In other cases, though, the question is more muddled. One could argue that any bug report test page must work in as many browsers as possible, since it's supposed to show that one browser's behaviour is different than the others'. Therefore, if any browser cannot use the test page even when it supports the styles or script in question, the bug page is flawed.
Besides, when I receive a bug report I run the test in every browser. Some bug reporters don't have access to Mac browsers, so it's particularly worth checking if the report also applies to Explorer Mac and Safari. When a page doesn't work in all browsers, though, I can't use this simple and efficient check.
On the other hand it could be argued that any page that allows us to verify the bug is good enough. After all, the page fulfills its purpose by allowing us to test the bug in the relevant browser.
At the moment I can't decide what to do. So I'd like your opinion: should a bug report test page work in as many browsers as possible? Should I refuse test pages that don't work in a browser they could work in? Or are bug reporters free to do what they like, as long as the bug can be verified in the relevant browser?
General | Reported on 10 December 2004.
Posted by Philip Hazelden on 10 December 2004
2In general, a test page isn't going to have complex code, so there isn't really a reason for it not to work in all browsers. If it needed for some reason something that broke other browsers without a hack, I'd say to leave the hack out - a test page should be simple so that the cause of the bug is as clear as possible.
Posted by Charles Belov on 10 December 2004
3The issue for me is that I am a single staff person. I have a couple bugs that I won't have time to report for some time. I have pages I can reproduce the bugs on, but they are not the simplest case. If I have to make a simple test case, then test them in all other browsers, it is unlikely I will get around to reporting these bugs. I realize that a simple test case is needed to isolate the problem, but adding testing on all browsers, and determining whether a particular problem means a bug exists in an additional browser or is a coding problem on my part, is more detective work than I am likely to do. Maybe I am not passionate enough for your site.
Posted by Sebastian Redl on 11 December 2004
4I think a bug page should "work" in the buggy browser and at least one more popular browser, correctly there, so it's possible to compare the two. Obvious incompatibilities like application/xhtml+xml should be avoided unless they trigger the bug. (E.g. I think it was reported that innerHTML didn't work in Moz under application/xhtml+xml - obviously the page would have that MIME type.)
Posted by Tudor on 12 December 2004
5I totaly agree with Sebastian (comment no. 4).
And I think you should consider hosting the test pages yourself, 'cause I'd hate to see such a wonderful idea as your Bug Report plagued with link rot - you can see this coming with those test pages scattered around the world, can't you?
Could you also please consider accepting bug reports without test pages or at least with the pages being e-mailed to you? Because not everybody can host them. Yesterday I even started building such a page for something I believe it's a JavaScript bug in IE6/win, then I realized that I'm in such a shameful situation and couldn't decide what to do. I mean should I just keep quiet and wait for someone else to discover it, or just ask you to host it for me? Looking forward to your decision on this one :).
And since we're talking of bug reports, I think you should know there's something wrong with the comment preview. I was able to verify this in both IE 6.0.3790.0 and Firefox 1.0 on Windows Server 2003: fill in 2 words (or more as it turns out) for name, an e-mail address, no homepage, and check Remember me, then press Preview. The e-mail is now in the homepage box, the second word from the name box jumped to the e-mail box and the first name remained where it was supposed to. On a second test I put 3 words in the name box and your preview script seems to "redistribute" words in the subsequent boxes :). Word 1 stayed, word 2 went in the e-mail box, word 3 in the homepage bo
Posted by Wout on 15 December 2004
6Offcourse a testpage should work in different browsers. The browser bug itself is not the only important thing, I'd also like to know which browsers do NOT suffer from the bug. It's all about the comparison of the major browsers.
Ideally, a bugreport for a particular browser or browsers should just be that: the bug only applies to the browser(s) mentioned in the bugreport.
I know that's rather utopian because not many people have access to a Mac but anybody can test a bug in Opera, IE, Firefox and Mozilla.
Maybe a test-team should be formed..?
Posted by ppk on 19 December 2004
7For now the score is 3 votes in favour and 3 against cross browser test pages. I'd hoped for a clear majority for either alternative.
Right now I'm tending towards requiring cross browser compatibility. It's true that creating a good, cross browser bug test page is more work, but I'm not sure if this is a decisive argument against. And, as Charles rightly noted, bug reporting requires a bit of passion along with technical know-how. I need people with such passion.
That's also the reason, Tudor, I'm not going to host test pages created by others. One of the points of the Bug Report is to spread the responsibility for bug reporting and maintaining test pages among more people than just myself. I don't have enough time to do everything. I need people who're willing to shoulder part of the burden.
More votes and arguments for or against requiring test pages to be cross browser are welcome. I haven't yet made up my mind.
Commenting guidelines:
Posted by Mark Wubben on 10 December 2004
1I'm with you on both stances. But, as this is a more general bug report dept. I feel bug reports posted here should work in as many browsers as possible. When you post a bug report at, say BugZilla, it's only relevant to Gecko (and perhaps a comparing browser).