Re: [webkit-dev] new-run-webkit-tests new results.html format
If we have + buttons for all the failures, might as well have them for the http logs too. :p On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Eric Seidel wrote: > IIRC the "showing wdiff when there is no wdiff" bug has since been > fixed? (but that bot just hasn't updated?) > > what's the "failure type" column? (and why can't I select its text?) > > Why do expected flaky tests show up in the "Expected to fail but passed" list? > > Seems expected flaky tests should be in some sort of separate > (less-obvious, possibly hidden-by-default) table. It looks like > they're currently split between the failure and the pass tables when > wether they passed or failed doesn't seem relevant to this run. > > -eric > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: >> Here is a link to the NRWT bot running the Mac Leopard Release build: >> >> http://build.webkit.org/results/Leopard%20Intel%20Release%20(NRWT)/r85644%20(142)/results.html >> >> -- Dirk >> >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Eric Seidel wrote: >>> Is that a good example? It doesn't remind me much of the ORWT output. >>> >>> The disclosure triangles don't seem to do anything for hte failures on >>> that page. >>> >>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Adam Roben wrote: > > On May 3, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > > The results load considerably faster now. For runs where many tests fail, > the filesize is considerably smaller than the > old-run-webkit-tests filesize. Also, I've added in the image toggling > behavior of old-run-webkit-tests and made the aesthetics a bit closer to > the > old-run-webkit-test format. > Some rough file sizes if you care about the details. > old-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 5k > old-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 250k > new-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 1k json + 25k htmljs > new-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 60k json + 25k html/js > > Thanks for all the work you've put into this, Ojan! Is there a link we can > use to look at the latest and greatest? http://build.chromium.org/f/chromium/layout_test_results/Webkit_Linux/results/layout-test-results/results.html Disclaimer: The json file loaded on that page is much larger (~90x) than the non-Chromium equivalent would be because Chromium runs tests expected to fail. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >>> >> > ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] new-run-webkit-tests new results.html format
IIRC the "showing wdiff when there is no wdiff" bug has since been fixed? (but that bot just hasn't updated?) what's the "failure type" column? (and why can't I select its text?) Why do expected flaky tests show up in the "Expected to fail but passed" list? Seems expected flaky tests should be in some sort of separate (less-obvious, possibly hidden-by-default) table. It looks like they're currently split between the failure and the pass tables when wether they passed or failed doesn't seem relevant to this run. -eric On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote: > Here is a link to the NRWT bot running the Mac Leopard Release build: > > http://build.webkit.org/results/Leopard%20Intel%20Release%20(NRWT)/r85644%20(142)/results.html > > -- Dirk > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Eric Seidel wrote: >> Is that a good example? It doesn't remind me much of the ORWT output. >> >> The disclosure triangles don't seem to do anything for hte failures on >> that page. >> >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: >>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Adam Roben wrote: On May 3, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: The results load considerably faster now. For runs where many tests fail, the filesize is considerably smaller than the old-run-webkit-tests filesize. Also, I've added in the image toggling behavior of old-run-webkit-tests and made the aesthetics a bit closer to the old-run-webkit-test format. Some rough file sizes if you care about the details. old-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 5k old-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 250k new-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 1k json + 25k htmljs new-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 60k json + 25k html/js Thanks for all the work you've put into this, Ojan! Is there a link we can use to look at the latest and greatest? >>> >>> http://build.chromium.org/f/chromium/layout_test_results/Webkit_Linux/results/layout-test-results/results.html >>> Disclaimer: The json file loaded on that page is much larger (~90x) than the >>> non-Chromium equivalent would be because Chromium runs tests expected to >>> fail. >>> ___ >>> webkit-dev mailing list >>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >>> >>> >> > ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] new-run-webkit-tests new results.html format
Here is a link to the NRWT bot running the Mac Leopard Release build: http://build.webkit.org/results/Leopard%20Intel%20Release%20(NRWT)/r85644%20(142)/results.html -- Dirk On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Eric Seidel wrote: > Is that a good example? It doesn't remind me much of the ORWT output. > > The disclosure triangles don't seem to do anything for hte failures on > that page. > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Adam Roben wrote: >>> >>> On May 3, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: >>> >>> The results load considerably faster now. For runs where many tests fail, >>> the filesize is considerably smaller than the >>> old-run-webkit-tests filesize. Also, I've added in the image toggling >>> behavior of old-run-webkit-tests and made the aesthetics a bit closer to the >>> old-run-webkit-test format. >>> Some rough file sizes if you care about the details. >>> old-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 5k >>> old-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 250k >>> new-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 1k json + 25k htmljs >>> new-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 60k json + 25k html/js >>> >>> Thanks for all the work you've put into this, Ojan! Is there a link we can >>> use to look at the latest and greatest? >> >> http://build.chromium.org/f/chromium/layout_test_results/Webkit_Linux/results/layout-test-results/results.html >> Disclaimer: The json file loaded on that page is much larger (~90x) than the >> non-Chromium equivalent would be because Chromium runs tests expected to >> fail. >> ___ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> >> > ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] new-run-webkit-tests new results.html format
Is that a good example? It doesn't remind me much of the ORWT output. The disclosure triangles don't seem to do anything for hte failures on that page. On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Adam Roben wrote: >> >> On May 3, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: >> >> The results load considerably faster now. For runs where many tests fail, >> the filesize is considerably smaller than the >> old-run-webkit-tests filesize. Also, I've added in the image toggling >> behavior of old-run-webkit-tests and made the aesthetics a bit closer to the >> old-run-webkit-test format. >> Some rough file sizes if you care about the details. >> old-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 5k >> old-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 250k >> new-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 1k json + 25k htmljs >> new-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 60k json + 25k html/js >> >> Thanks for all the work you've put into this, Ojan! Is there a link we can >> use to look at the latest and greatest? > > http://build.chromium.org/f/chromium/layout_test_results/Webkit_Linux/results/layout-test-results/results.html > Disclaimer: The json file loaded on that page is much larger (~90x) than the > non-Chromium equivalent would be because Chromium runs tests expected to > fail. > ___ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > > ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] new-run-webkit-tests new results.html format
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Adam Roben wrote: > On May 3, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > > The results load considerably faster now. For runs where many tests fail, > the filesize is considerably smaller than the > old-run-webkit-tests filesize. Also, I've added in the image toggling > behavior of old-run-webkit-tests and made the aesthetics a bit closer to the > old-run-webkit-test format. > > Some rough file sizes if you care about the details. > > old-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 5k > old-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 250k > new-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 1k json + 25k htmljs > new-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 60k json + 25k html/js > > > Thanks for all the work you've put into this, Ojan! Is there a link we can > use to look at the latest and greatest? > http://build.chromium.org/f/chromium/layout_test_results/Webkit_Linux/results/layout-test-results/results.html Disclaimer: The json file loaded on that page is much larger (~90x) than the non-Chromium equivalent would be because Chromium runs tests expected to fail. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] new-run-webkit-tests new results.html format
On May 3, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > The results load considerably faster now. For runs where many tests fail, the > filesize is considerably smaller than the old-run-webkit-tests filesize. > Also, I've added in the image toggling behavior of old-run-webkit-tests and > made the aesthetics a bit closer to the old-run-webkit-test format. > > Some rough file sizes if you care about the details. > > old-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 5k > old-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 250k > new-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 1k json + 25k htmljs > new-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 60k json + 25k html/js Thanks for all the work you've put into this, Ojan! Is there a link we can use to look at the latest and greatest? -Adam > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Apr 21, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> (2) Slow to load (apparently it loads a 3 meg JSON file before displaying >> anything?) >> >> Loading it locally is very fast for me. I guess I should try it on a laptop >> though. > > I'm on a laptop. On my home WiFi, it takes 5-15 seconds. > > Yikes. >> For context, we reuse the JSON file that's used for the test runtime >> treemaps, which means we need an entry for each test. That json will will >> get .5 meg smaller shortly. There are a number of approaches to make this >> smaller if needed. Some options would be to generate a separate JSON file, >> or to make the data format in the existing json file more compact. > It seems to me that only data on unexpected failures should be needed for > initial display. Making the page load fast seems more important than > convenience of reusing an existing JSON file. I hope you will agree that 5-15 > second load time is not acceptable. I'm sure it would be even worse in poor > network conditions, where even the old-style pages can be a challenge to > load. I would also like to be able to look at results pages on my iPhone or > iPad without invoking the OOM killer. > > This should be relatively straightforward to fix. I'll ping again in a day or > two when it's done. I expect we should be able to get comparable, if not > smaller size than the old style pages. >> (3) I like PrettyPatch format better than wdiff format. >> >> This is orthogonal. new-run-webkit-tests will use whichever one is available >> on the system. The results.html file will display whichever one was used. > What would the bots display if this is deployed? > > I'm not 100% sure. Dirk can confirm, but I believe it will use whichever one > is on the system. So, if the bot has pretty-patch, but not wdiff, it would > only show the pretty-patch link. The Chromium bot I linked to has wdiff, but > not pretty-patch, hence the wdiff links. > > Ojan > > ___ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] new-run-webkit-tests new results.html format
The results load considerably faster now. For runs where many tests fail, the filesize is considerably smaller than the old-run-webkit-tests filesize. Also, I've added in the image toggling behavior of old-run-webkit-tests and made the aesthetics a bit closer to the old-run-webkit-test format. Some rough file sizes if you care about the details. old-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 5k old-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 250k new-run-webkit-tests 5 failures: 1k json + 25k htmljs new-run-webkit-tests 500 failures: 60k json + 25k html/js Ojan On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> On Apr 21, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> (2) Slow to load (apparently it loads a 3 meg JSON file before displaying >>> anything?) >>> >> >> Loading it locally is very fast for me. I guess I should try it on a >> laptop though. >> >> >> I'm on a laptop. On my home WiFi, it takes 5-15 seconds. >> > > Yikes. > >> For context, we reuse the JSON file that's used for the test runtime >> treemaps, which means we need an entry for each test. That json will will >> get .5 meg smaller shortly. There are a number of approaches to make this >> smaller if needed. Some options would be to generate a separate JSON file, >> or to make the data format in the existing json file more compact. >> >> It seems to me that only data on unexpected failures should be needed for >> initial display. Making the page load fast seems more important than >> convenience of reusing an existing JSON file. I hope you will agree that >> 5-15 second load time is not acceptable. I'm sure it would be even worse in >> poor network conditions, where even the old-style pages can be a challenge >> to load. I would also like to be able to look at results pages on my iPhone >> or iPad without invoking the OOM killer. >> > > This should be relatively straightforward to fix. I'll ping again in a day > or two when it's done. I expect we should be able to get comparable, if not > smaller size than the old style pages. > >> (3) I like PrettyPatch format better than wdiff format. >>> >> >> This is orthogonal. new-run-webkit-tests will use whichever one is >> available on the system. The results.html file will display whichever one >> was used. >> >> What would the bots display if this is deployed? >> > > I'm not 100% sure. Dirk can confirm, but I believe it will use whichever > one is on the system. So, if the bot has pretty-patch, but not wdiff, it > would only show the pretty-patch link. The Chromium bot I linked to has > wdiff, but not pretty-patch, hence the wdiff links. > > Ojan > ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Tiger
> I was referring mostly to build-webkit ifs, assuming that the #ifdefs > in the cpp code were still around as well. But it's possible those > already got removed. :) I think Eric's question is broader than just #ifdefs. Bugzilla has some Tiger bugs that we should close if we consider Tiger's support to be dropped. Julien ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Tiger
I was referring mostly to build-webkit ifs, assuming that the #ifdefs in the cpp code were still around as well. But it's possible those already got removed. :) -eric On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Mark Rowe wrote: > > On 2011-05-03, at 10:58, Eric Seidel wrote: > >> It looks like Tiger support in WebKit is slowly being removed. There >> no longer is a libWebKitSystemInterfaceTiger.a in the project, nor is >> there a Tiger buildbot or tiger expectations. >> >> Can we go ahead and kill all the ifdefs too? Or is it too early to >> call Tiger dead? > > What ifdefs are you referring to? > > - Mark > > > ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Tiger
On 2011-05-03, at 10:58, Eric Seidel wrote: > It looks like Tiger support in WebKit is slowly being removed. There > no longer is a libWebKitSystemInterfaceTiger.a in the project, nor is > there a Tiger buildbot or tiger expectations. > > Can we go ahead and kill all the ifdefs too? Or is it too early to > call Tiger dead? What ifdefs are you referring to? - Mark ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
[webkit-dev] Tiger
It looks like Tiger support in WebKit is slowly being removed. There no longer is a libWebKitSystemInterfaceTiger.a in the project, nor is there a Tiger buildbot or tiger expectations. Can we go ahead and kill all the ifdefs too? Or is it too early to call Tiger dead? -eric ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Plugin layout tests in WebKit2-Gtk port
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM, wrote: > So, I am facing a roadblock now. > Is there any other way to run those layout tests on wekbkit2-gtk ?? > Can I use the available patch in the above listed bug report ?? While waiting for my patch to finish the review process, feel free to apply it and try the GTK+ version of WebKitTestRunner for yourself. I'm fairly sure that plugins are non-functional for WebKit2 GTK+ though. --Martin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] How to enable WebGL on WebKit QT port?
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Won J Jeon wrote: > Thanks for the update. BTW, is there any switch that I need to turn on in > order to enable WebGL support with QT port? > > I built the code by using '--3d-canvas --3d-rendering' switches and > launched QtTestBrowser by using 'run-launcher'. > However, when I access the WebGL page, it says 'It doesn't appear your > computer can support WebGL'. > I already double-checked that WebGL works with chromium on my Ubuntu > desktop. > In order to get WebGL with Qt and have good performance you must use: +QGraphicsWebView +QGLWidget on the viewport of QGraphicsView +accelerated compositing +enable WebGL (you can enable all of this from the command line of QTestBrowser of via the menu). I suggest you to ask your question the mailing list webkit-qt. The main contributors of the WebGL support of Qt are on that list. cheers, Benjamin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
