Ojan, As you know, run_webkit_tests doesn't have the concept of "it's okay that there are no expected results".
Several other people have also mentioned to me that it would be nice if it did, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. I don't know that I would consider tests marked WONTFIX special in this regard; tests that are marked FAIL seem like they could also qualify under some reasoning. If people agree that some form of this would be a useful feature, I'll be happy to add it. In the mean time, I agree that marking platform/X as SKIP for all platforms != X is a very reasonable thing to do. -- Dirk On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote: > They are marked WONTFIX. We run them to ensure they don't crash. This looks > like a bug in run_webkit_tests to me. For tests that are WONTFIX, we > shouldn't care if the expected results are missing. > Seems a bit silly to me that we run them at all though. I would be a fan of > just skipping the platform tests that don't apply to the current platform. > In practice, running them adds maintenance cost and cycle time (although, > very little) but doesn't really catch crashes. > Ojan > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Avi Drissman <a...@google.com> wrote: >> >> The output of a test run of the Mac pixel tests is at: >> >> >> http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/try-server/builders/layout_mac/builds/85/steps/webkit_tests/logs/stdio >> >> What's weird is the line: >> >> Missing expected results (2): >> LayoutTests/fast/forms/menulist-style-color.html >> LayoutTests/platform/win/accessibility/scroll-to-anchor.html >> >> >> Why is it running a platform/win test? That's where the outputs are, and >> not even the ones for the correct platform... >> >> Avi > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
