On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Eric Seidel <e...@webkit.org> wrote: > TestExpectation files on all ports are full of: > # unskip these tests when we add obscure-drt-feature-x > > http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/platform/wk2/Skipped#L107 > http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/platform/wk2/Skipped#L209 > http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/platform/wk2/Skipped#L247
I believe these will go away with a single implementation of overridePreference(). > http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/platform/chromium/TestExpectations#L115 > http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/platform/chromium/TestExpectations#L948 > http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/platform/chromium/TestExpectations#L958 But am not so sure here. > I would agree with Adam, and the more we can move to window.internals, > the less technical debt we incur with each new DRT feature. > > I would love to see overridePreferences go away (or only be used for > preferences which need to test the WebKit-side plumbing). DRT/WKTR are important not only in that they test WebCore but also in that they test the WebKit they embed. This seems like a short sided conclusion based on convenience. ~Brady > > as just a few examples. :) I didn't even look at the less-well-funded ports. > :) > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >> [re-sent from the proper address] >> >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Adam Barth <abarth@nowhere> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Brady Eidson <beid...@apple.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> First, direct calls on testRunner that just set preferences should be >>>>> migrated to internals.settings or testRunner.overridePreference calls, I >>>>> think (I don't know if either is preferred). >>>> >>>> >>>> I support the idea of unifying the approaches and just use >>>> internals.settings. However, the last time I checked, Alexey had some >>>> concerns about using internals due to settings may not be properly >>>> propagated to WebKit2 layer. Has this concern been addressed? >>>> >>>> >>>> In general I prefer the overridePreference() calls whenever they exist. >>>> >>>> internals.settings are not exposed in any real-world product whereas >>>> preferences exist in each platform's WebKit-layer API that they expose to >>>> their embedders in some form. >>> >>> >>> The main downside of overridePreference is that it requires that you >>> expose an API for twiddling the preference on every port. That can lead to >>> us exposing unneeded APIs (making them harder to remove) and to a bunch of >>> port-specific code in an otherwise port-independent patch. >>> >>> IMHO, we should prefer InternalSettings unless we need to test the >>> WebKit-layer code. >>> >>> Adam >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >> _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
