On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@chromium.org>wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>> 1) We don't have notes on why tests are failing. => Why not annotate
>>> the tests in test_lists? That's what I've always done.
>>
>>
>> Once again, we don't want to add more state to the test_expectations. How
>> may people looked up the tests they were supposed to rebaseline in this file
>> to see if there were notes? I kind of doubt anyone.
>>
>
> Um... this makes no sense to me. You can't rebaseline a test without
> modifying test_expectations. In modifying it, you *have* to look at it.
> It's pretty difficult to miss comments above tests as you're trying to
> write "REBASELINE" or delete the line.
>
> If you somehow managed to not see any comments in this file, I think you're
> an outlier.
>
I was talking about the rebaselining teams, not the act of actually
rebaselining. If someone's rebaselining a test, then it means we now
believe it's passing. At that point, the notes are not very interesting,
right? Are you saying that you looked at all the tests' notes before you
looked through the results to determine if they should be rebaselined?
>
> There are different reasons for failing. A layout test could be failing
>> because of a known bug and then start failing in a different way (later) due
>> to a regression. When a bug fails in a new way, it's worth taking a quick
>> look, I think.
>>
>
> Why? Unless the earlier failure has been fixed we can't rebaseline the
> test. (I ran into a number of tests like this when doing my rebaselining
> pass.) What is the point of looking again?
>
In case the new failure is more serious than the earlier one.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
