I think this plan sounds good, too.
I'm mucking with those scripts a bit at the moment for the LTTF
reporting, so I can make this change tomorrow, unless someone else
would rather do it.
I might actually prefer FAIL-TEXT and FAIL-IMAGE, but that's just me.
I agree that TEXTFAIL is better than TEXT. Anyone else care to express
a preference?
-- Dirk
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Stephen White <senorbla...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Could we make them TEXTFAIL and IMAGEFAIL, just to be clear?
> Stephen
>
> (And then post them to failblog if they're really embarassing.. J/K ;)
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> +pam, tc, darin in case they disagree with what I'm saying here.
>>
>> Also a bunch of current expectations would need to be modified. All
>> the cases where there is currently FAIL would need to be changed to
>> either FAIL or IMAGE or both if it's a text and image failure. You
>> should be able to get most of the data for this by looking at the
>> layout test dashboard. The only exception is you won't be able to
>> distinguish tests that fail both image and text from tests that only
>> fail image.
>>
>> A short-term solution could be to leave FAIL meaning IMAGE and/or TEXT
>> and adding IMAGE and TEXT for image-only and text-only failures. Then
>> we can gradually excise the FAIL lines from text_expectations.
>>
>> I think this would be a good permanent change, but I can see arguments
>> to the contrary.
>>
>> Ojan
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > There is not. But adding it would be easy. There's been mention of
>> > doing this for a while, but noone has made the effort to make it work.
>> > All you'd have to do is:
>> > -modify a few lines in TestExpectationsFile in
>> > src/webkit/tools/layout_tests/layout_package/test_expectations.py to
>> > add support for IMAGE in test_expectations.
>> > -treat IMAGE and other failures separately in
>> > src/webkit/tools/layout_tests/layout_package/compare_failures.py.
>> > Specifically, take test_failures.FailureImageHashMismatch out of
>> > FAILURE_TYPES and add an IMAGE_FAILURE_TYPE and use it below.
>> >
>> > Ojan
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Avi Drissman <a...@google.com> wrote:
>> >> I've been looking into the pixel test situation on the Mac, and it
>> >> isn't bad
>> >> at all. Of ~5300 tests that have png results, we're failing ~800, most
>> >> of
>> >> which fall into huge buckets of easily-separable fail.
>> >>
>> >> Is there a way to specify that we're expecting an image compare to fail
>> >> but
>> >> still want the layout to succeed? We don't want to turn off the tests
>> >> entirely while we fix them and run the chance of breaking something
>> >> that
>> >> layout would have caught.
>> >>
>> >> Avi
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
> violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. --
> Schopenhauer
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
