At a quick glance, this looks great. I didn't look over every bug, but the ones I did look at look good. It would be great to check in a version of this script that we could run when a number of tests fail (e.g. when doing a bad webkit merge). That way, we can add them all to the local test_expectations.txt file and have it spit out the new results.
Really, it would be great if the script filed bugs and then just modified test_expectations.txt directly (without committing it). Also, the script should remove any comments it moves into bug descriptions. We should get to a point where all the comments about layout tests are in the bug descriptions themselves instead of in this file. I think it would be good to get the script checked in first and then run it on the existing test_expectations.txt file. Ojan On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Glenn Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pam & Ojan, > I wrote a script that would extract all of the layout tests from > test_expectations.txt that we haven't marked as WONTFIX and don't have a bug > number. I also tried a simple heuristic to get the context of the layout > test via nearby comments....it's not perfect, and I'll have to change some > of them by hand, but many of the merge comments are getting picked up. > > I've also hooked up our library for creating demetrius bugs, so getting > bugs made for these should be a matter of running the script with different > arguments (I hope). > > What are your thoughts? Is these as descriptive/accurate as we need? Is > 200+ bugs too many? > > Thanks! > Glenn > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
