Re: [webkit-dev] Asserting versus throwing in internals and testRunner objects

2016-09-23 Thread Alexey Proskuryakov 

Note that we are talking about API misuse here, so associating the crash with a 
test is not really needed - it's the test that you are writing.

I've seen tests getting checked in even when they don't run to completion and 
raise JS exceptions. I want it to be very clear and obvious when a test is bad, 
and a console log is too subtle of a clue. Additionally, I don't really see 
much difference between these asserts that we use in TestRunner and asserts in 
shipping code. Both are about unexpected conditions, so if we want to avoid 
crashing, shouldn't we also convert all ASSERTs into log messages?

Ultimately, I don't think that it is fair to think about testRunner and tests 
themselves as separate entities, which is of course the way we think about 
WebKit and web content. Tests are designed with testRunner limitations in mind, 
and if these limitations are not respected, the response should be the same as 
for any expectation mismatch between C++ functions. Making the connection 
weaker will make it harder to maintain the tests.

- Alexey


> 23 сент. 2016 г., в 16:26, Geoffrey Garen  написал(а):
> 
> I vote for throwing a JS exception.
> 
> In my experience, tests that crash are harder to deal with than tests that 
> throw JS exceptions. A backtrace is a less informative than the message “you 
> called internals.X without a frame”. Symbolication takes a long time. And 
> sometimes we have trouble associating crash logs with specific tests.
> 
> Geoff
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> In https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161919, a question was
>> raised as to what would be the best practice when one of internals or
>> testRunner method is called at an undesirable timing or wrong
>> arguments.  The case in question was about calling it on a document
>> without a frame when the method required a frame.
>> 
>> What would be the desired outcome of making such a method call?
>> Should we be asserting it and crashing the process?  Or should we be
>> throwing an exception?
>> 
>> - R. Niwa
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev


___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Asserting versus throwing in internals and testRunner objects

2016-09-23 Thread Geoffrey Garen 
I vote for throwing a JS exception.

In my experience, tests that crash are harder to deal with than tests that 
throw JS exceptions. A backtrace is a less informative than the message “you 
called internals.X without a frame”. Symbolication takes a long time. And 
sometimes we have trouble associating crash logs with specific tests.

Geoff

> On Sep 23, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> In https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161919, a question was
> raised as to what would be the best practice when one of internals or
> testRunner method is called at an undesirable timing or wrong
> arguments.  The case in question was about calling it on a document
> without a frame when the method required a frame.
> 
> What would be the desired outcome of making such a method call?
> Should we be asserting it and crashing the process?  Or should we be
> throwing an exception?
> 
> - R. Niwa
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

[webkit-dev] Fall 2016 WebKit Contributors Meeting – Registration Open

2016-09-23 Thread Jon Davis 
Hello WebKit Contributors,

You are invited to attend the annual WebKit Contributors Meeting to be held at 
the Hyatt House San Jose/Silicon Valley hotel on October 26th 8 AM to 6 PM. 

Breakfast and sign-in will begin at 8 AM. Presentations will run between 9:30 
AM to 6 PM. Lunch will be provided with all day coffee, tea and a mid-afternoon 
snack break. A reception is planned at the venue after the meeting with drinks 
and snacks from 6 PM to 9 PM.

As always, to attend you must be an active WebKit contributor. The meeting will 
be free of charge, and registration is now open. Sign up at 
https://webkit.org/meeting  to reserve your spot. 
Registration deadline is Wednesday, October 19th, 2016. If you are traveling 
internationally and require a formal invitation letter, please email me.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Thank you,
Jon Davis


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] [CMake] Bumping cmake_minimum_required

2016-09-23 Thread Alex Christensen 
Updating to CMake 3.2 would also not cause us a problem.
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 1:14 AM, Konstantin Tokarev  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 23.09.2016, 00:59, "Alex Christensen"  >:
>> Requiring CMake 3.0 would not cause us a problem.
> 
> Looks like anyone is fine with updating CMake to 3.0, however Fujii Hironori 
> is asking about CMake 3.2, and AFAIU updating to 3.0 won't help for his patch.
> .
> 
>>>  On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:06 AM, Michael Catanzaro  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 18:09 +0900, Fujii Hironori wrote:
  Ubuntu 14.04 has GCC 4.8 and build fails with a following error
  message.
>>> 
>>>  Hm that's a good point. Looks like that ship has already sailed. No, we
>>>  don't want to support GCC 4.8. Our dependency policy is only a month
>>>  old, and we just didn't notice this yet. :)
>>> 
>>>  In that case, we're fine with requiring CMake 3.0 (the version in
>>>  Debian Jessie), but I think Apple is using a lower versions than that
>>>  so we need to hear from them. Alex?
>>> 
>>>  Michael
>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Konstantin

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] [CMake] Bumping cmake_minimum_required

2016-09-23 Thread Fujii Hironori 
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Konstantin Tokarev  wrote:
>
>
> 23.09.2016, 00:59, "Alex Christensen" :
>> Requiring CMake 3.0 would not cause us a problem.
>
> Looks like anyone is fine with updating CMake to 3.0, however Fujii Hironori 
> is asking about CMake 3.2, and AFAIU updating to 3.0 won't help for his patch.
> .

That's right.
Debian 9 will be released in 2017. 
One year after Debian 9 is released, CMake 3.5 will the minimum
version to be supported, which is included in Ubuntu 16.4.
I can not wait for that.
I will take the approach of switching by CMAKE_VERSION like the following code.

> if (${CMAKE_VERSION} VERSION_LESS 3.2)

Thank you.

---
hironori.fu...@sony.com  Sony Interactive Entertainment
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

[webkit-dev] https://webkit-queues.webkit.org down?

2016-09-23 Thread youenn fablet 
Hi all,

It seems https://webkit-queues.webkit.org is down (I got 503 responses).
Can somebody check this?

Thanks
   y
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] [CMake] Bumping cmake_minimum_required

2016-09-23 Thread Konstantin Tokarev 


23.09.2016, 00:59, "Alex Christensen" :
> Requiring CMake 3.0 would not cause us a problem.

Looks like anyone is fine with updating CMake to 3.0, however Fujii Hironori is 
asking about CMake 3.2, and AFAIU updating to 3.0 won't help for his patch.
.

>>  On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:06 AM, Michael Catanzaro  
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 18:09 +0900, Fujii Hironori wrote:
>>>  Ubuntu 14.04 has GCC 4.8 and build fails with a following error
>>>  message.
>>
>>  Hm that's a good point. Looks like that ship has already sailed. No, we
>>  don't want to support GCC 4.8. Our dependency policy is only a month
>>  old, and we just didn't notice this yet. :)
>>
>>  In that case, we're fine with requiring CMake 3.0 (the version in
>>  Debian Jessie), but I think Apple is using a lower versions than that
>>  so we need to hear from them. Alex?
>>
>>  Michael
>
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev