bypass bogus AOM crashtests that assume abandoned syntax will be added.

[cookiecrook]

Closes web-platform-tests/interop-accessibility#56

[wpt-pr-bot]

There are no reviewers for this pull request. Please reach out on the chat room to get help with this. Thank you!

[cookiecrook]

Note to reviewers... The tests pass by removing this "test-wait" classname.

The diffs below wrap a conditional if/else around blocks that only work in Chrome, because it relies on an abandoned API proposal (getComputedAccessibleNode). The larger diff blocks are the same, but indented so every line is different.

This allows WPT to keep the crashtest running for Chrome without penalizing other engines with 4 bogus failures.

[gsnedders]

In broad strokes: I wonder if we should move all the AOM tests to a top-level aom directory, rather than having a miscellaneous accessibility directory—everywhere else we group things by spec, after all. This would also arguably make it easier to ignore tests for the abandoned spec, treating it the same as any other spec (say, WebUSB) which doesn't have cross-vendor support.

[cookiecrook]

In broad strokes: I wonder if we should move all the AOM tests to a top-level aom directory, rather than having a miscellaneous accessibility directory—everywhere else we group things by spec, after all. This would also arguably make it easier to ignore tests for the abandoned spec, treating it the same as any other spec (say, WebUSB) which doesn't have cross-vendor support.

That directory is several years old, and I have no issue with moving it... However, it's only crashtests... I added a ReadMe back in the Spring that effectively says... "Don't put new tests here unless they fit nowhere else."

cc @mfreed7 and @aleventhal since they have committed to the dir recently.

[cookiecrook]

@gsnedders all the new accessibility tests are in spec-relevant directories:

• https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=master&label=experimental&aligned&q=label%3Aaccessibility

[mfreed7]

cc @mfreed7 and @aleventhal since they have committed to the dir recently.

I'll definitely defer to @aleventhal - I've only committed here once (happened to be a week ago) but that was just to correct an existing test.

[aleventhal]

LGTM on general approach -- I didn't review line by line.

[spectranaut]

looks fine to me!