Re: [webkit-dev] Planned Maintenance: svn.webkit.org downtime Oct 12-14

2018-10-12 Thread Lucas Forschler 
Notice:

svn.webkit.org  will be put into read only mode at 5pm 
PST. 
I’ll follow-up with an “all clear” when things are back online.

Thanks for your patience.
Lucas


> On Oct 11, 2018, at 3:56 PM, Lucas Forschler  wrote:
> 
> Another friendly reminder that we’ll be putting svn.webkit.org 
>  into read-only mode around 5pm PST tomorrow, Friday 
> October 12th.
> Thanks!
> Lucas
> 
> 
>> On Oct 4, 2018, at 4:30 PM, Lucas Forschler > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 4, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Lucas Forschler >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello everyone!
>>> 
>>> Just a quick friendly reminder that our planned maintenance will be happing 
>>> next week, a week from today! 
>> 
>> Hah!  It’s not Friday yet!
>> A week from TOMORROW, PST timezone.
>> 
>>> 
>>> As always, send a note if you have any questions or concerns.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Lucas
>>> 
>>> 
 On Sep 26, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Lucas Forschler >>> > wrote:
 
 Hello WebKit:
 
 We are planning maintenance to our webkit.org  
 continuous integration infrastructure over the weekend of Oct 12th. The 
 last time we had a lengthy outage, many regressions crept into the tree 
 and it took a while to get them all resolved. Therefore, starting at 5pm 
 on Friday October 12th (PST), svn.webkit.org  will 
 be made read only for the duration of the maintenance.
 
 I apologize for the downtime and inconvenience. We are doing our best to 
 keep it as short as possible and over a weekend/non-core hours. We 
 anticipate having everything back online under normal operation before 
 Monday, Oct 15th at 8am, PST. 
 
 I will reply to this email when svn is back open for business.
 
 Please email ad...@webkit.org  if you have any 
 questions or concerns
 
 Thanks,
 Lucas
 
 
 
> On Aug 26, 2018, at 5:33 PM, Lucas Forschler  > wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I’m happy to announce the WebKit repository is open for commits. Please 
> let me know if you run into any issues.
> 
> There will be a followup maintenance period sometime in the future. I 
> will communicate details in advance.
> 
> Thanks for your patience,
> Lucas
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 24, 2018, at 5:01 PM, Lucas Forschler > > wrote:
>> 
>> svn.webkit.org  is closed now closed for 
>> commits. 
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Lucas
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 23, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Lucas Forschler >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Friendly reminder:
>>> 
>>> svn.webkit.org  will be made read-only for a 
>>> maintenance window starting at 5pm on Friday August 24th (PST).
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> Lucas
>>> 
>>> 
 On Aug 21, 2018, at 4:24 PM, Lucas Forschler >>> > wrote:
 
 Hello WebKit Developers!
 
 We are planning maintenance to our webkit.org  
 continuous integration infrastructure this weekend. The last time we 
 had a lengthy outage, many regressions crept into the tree and it took 
 a while to get them all resolved. Therefore, starting at 5pm on Friday 
 August 24th (PST), svn.webkit.org  will be 
 made read only for the duration of the maintenance.
 
 I apologize for the downtime and inconvenience. We are doing our best 
 to keep it as short as possible and over a weekend/non-core hours. We 
 anticipate having everything back online under normal operation before 
 Monday at 8am, PST. 
 
 I will reply to this email when svn is back open for business.
 
 Please email ad...@webkit.org  if you have 
 any questions or concerns.
 
 Thanks,
 Lucas
 ___
 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 
>>

Re: [webkit-dev] Huge improvement in Safari results on wpt.fyi

2018-10-12 Thread Philip Jägenstedt 
Hi Dean,

On the run of Safari that was used for this report, the infrastructure
test for ahem was actually passing:
https://wpt.fyi/results/infrastructure/assumptions?sha=67152fdecd=chrome[stable]=edge[stable]=firefox[stable]=safari[experimental]

Are you sure that Ahem is the explanation for the failures, do you
have a test that you think is actually passing and the wpt.fyi results
are wrong? Clearly, having screenshots would make it easier to
understand a situation like this, and it's something we've discussed a
bit today:
https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi/issues/57
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:01 AM Dean Jackson  wrote:
>
> It turns out that many (most?) of the CSS failures are because we no longer 
> expose user-installed fonts, e.g. Ahem.
>
> Options:
>
> - update lots of tests to load Ahem via @font-face (yuck)
> - allow Ahem to be used if installed (weird to special case one font, but 
> probably ok)
>
> Dean
>
> > On 12 Oct 2018, at 03:26, Philip Jägenstedt  wrote:
> >
> > Alright, I've written a one-off script [1] to find the Safari-only
> > failures, and here's the output:
> > https://gist.github.com/foolip/4d410ce79416bcdce71feb212159a02e
> >
> > Barring bugs, each of linked tests or one of its subtests should be
> > failing in Safari Technology Preview and passing in stable versions of
> > Chrome, Edge and Firefox.
> >
> > Numerically, most of the failures are in css (622), encoding (135) and
> > html (60). With css, it's mostly css/CSS2.
> >
> > I hope looking through this may be of use to you!
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/foolip/ad-hoc-wpt-results-analysis
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:50 PM Philip Jägenstedt  
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> That filtering capability unfortunately does not yet exist on wpt.fyi
> >> but it's a high priority and actively being worked on:
> >> https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi/issues/201
> >>
> >> FWIW, I suspect that these purposes, comparing to the stable versions
> >> of all *other* browsers might be the most useful:
> >> https://wpt.fyi/results/?product=chrome%5Bstable%5D=edge%5Bstable%5D=firefox%5Bstable%5D=safari%5Bexperimental%5D
> >>
> >> Again, no way to filter on wpt.fyi, but I'll see if I can download the
> >> full results and write a quick script.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:49 PM Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the intriguing data, Philip.
> >>>
> >>> Is there a way to get a list of tests where all other browsers pass but 
> >>> Safari / WebKit fail?
> >>>
> >>> That would allow us to quickly identify the set of tests we can fix to 
> >>> improve the interoperability across browsers right away.
> >>>
> >>> - R. Niwa
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 3:45 AM Philip Jägenstedt  
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  Hi WebKittens,
> 
>  Fresh off the bots, I'm excited to report more robust Safari results,
>  and that Safari WPT pass rates are clearly improving! Thanks to the
>  hard work of Mike Pennisi [1] we now have the first Safari 12 results:
>  https://wpt.fyi/results/?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0
> 
>  This uses the same setup as for Safari Technology Preview, which has
>  been running for a while [2] and are the results you see on the
>  "experimental" view:
>  https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=experimental
> 
>  This appears much more robust than the Safari 11 data we've collected
>  from Sauce Labs, and we can see a massive improvement between Safari
>  11 and 12:
>  https://wpt.fyi/results/?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-11.1=safari-12.0
> 
>  This lumps together infrastructure improvements as well as Safari
>  11->12 improvements, but improvements in service-workers/ [3] stands
>  out, as well as in webdriver/, referrer-policy/, css/css-align/, and
>  others. (The effect of moving away from Sauce is mainly less
>  timeouts.)
> 
>  Also very interesting is to compare Safari 12 stable to TP:
>  https://wpt.fyi/results/?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1
> 
>  One can tell that work is going in canvas-related things,
>  web-animations/, css/css-logical/ and more! \o/
> 
>  I hope you'll all find these results valuable, and please report bugs
>  or feature requests here:
>  https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi/issues
> 
>  P.S. We're also trying to use use these diff views to spot
>  regressions. It's a bit hard to use, [4] but a fix in in progress [5]
>  and I might check back here when that works. I'll append to the end of
>  this email a non-exhaustive list of possible regressions already
>  possible to spot.
> 
>  [1] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/results-collection/issues/604
>  [2] https://wpt.fyi/test-runs?labels=safari,experimental
>  [3] 
>  https://wpt.fyi/results/service-workers?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-11.1=safari-12.0=true
>  [4] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi/issues/411
>  [5]

Re: [webkit-dev] Huge improvement in Safari results on wpt.fyi

2018-10-12 Thread Philip Jägenstedt 
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:07 PM Geoffrey Sneddon  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:23 AM Emilio Cobos Álvarez  wrote:
> >
> > On 10/12/18 3:59 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
> > > Honest question: What’s gross about using @font-face?
> > >
> > > It would be lots of test edits. That’s a bummer.
> > >
> > > But maybe it’s clearer for the tests to specify the font they want to 
> > > use. It makes the test self-describing, eliminating the requirement that 
> > > the user take a step outside the test to get the right result.
>
> See https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/9105 about this.
>
> > Note that there's also the opposite opinion of loading a web font
> > potentially hiding bugs:
> >
> >https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Jan/0053.html
> >
> > Though I don't have such a strong opinion myself, I think @font-face is
> > a fine solution for that problem (and other people seemed to be ok with
> > that as well, looking at how that thread continues...).
>
> I don't have a strong opinion here, but: a) it certainly seems
> annoying to flush layout and avoid triggering any layout invalidation
> bugs; b) we have plenty of other (manual ) tests for the font
> matching algorithm (and parts of that obviously do need to use system
> installed fonts).

I don't think we should change a bunch of tests, it's useful to be
able to depend on *some* system font existing across the board, and
Ahem is it. We already need root access in our CI systems because of
/etc/hosts, so just putting Ahem in /Library/Fonts as part of the
setup is fine.

> As an aside: when did user installed fonts stop being allowed by
> default? r226172 states nothing is using the SPI yet (though did it
> already default to No? in which case it has been disallowed by default
> since r225641). wpt.fyi seems to have Ahem being installed okay for
> STP but not stable, based on infrastructure/assumptions/ahem.html, and
> all that does it copy the font to ~/Library/Fonts, which confuses me!

I'd also like to know when this change happened, because in
https://github.com/foolip/wpt/pull/5 I had to work around it for Azure
Pipelines, which has macOS 10.13.6, while all the other CI systems I
tried worked with the code as-is. They are all running the same
version of STP. (This PR is still just me experimenting, but the goal
is to get Safari coverage for PRs pretty soon.)
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Huge improvement in Safari results on wpt.fyi

2018-10-12 Thread Geoffrey Sneddon 
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:23 AM Emilio Cobos Álvarez  wrote:
>
> On 10/12/18 3:59 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
> > Honest question: What’s gross about using @font-face?
> >
> > It would be lots of test edits. That’s a bummer.
> >
> > But maybe it’s clearer for the tests to specify the font they want to use. 
> > It makes the test self-describing, eliminating the requirement that the 
> > user take a step outside the test to get the right result.

See https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/9105 about this.

> Note that there's also the opposite opinion of loading a web font
> potentially hiding bugs:
>
>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Jan/0053.html
>
> Though I don't have such a strong opinion myself, I think @font-face is
> a fine solution for that problem (and other people seemed to be ok with
> that as well, looking at how that thread continues...).

I don't have a strong opinion here, but: a) it certainly seems
annoying to flush layout and avoid triggering any layout invalidation
bugs; b) we have plenty of other (manual ) tests for the font
matching algorithm (and parts of that obviously do need to use system
installed fonts).

As an aside: when did user installed fonts stop being allowed by
default? r226172 states nothing is using the SPI yet (though did it
already default to No? in which case it has been disallowed by default
since r225641). wpt.fyi seems to have Ahem being installed okay for
STP but not stable, based on infrastructure/assumptions/ahem.html, and
all that does it copy the font to ~/Library/Fonts, which confuses me!

> I don't know if the CSSWG ended up taking an official position on this,
> but may be worth asking in www-style before doing he work of a mass-convert.

I'd like to suggest to discuss this on the above linked WPT issue; the
CSS WG are far from the only stakeholder here (there are plenty of
reftests elsewhere in WPT!).

/g

>
>   -- Emilio
>
> > Thanks,
> > Geoff
> >
> >> On Oct 11, 2018, at 6:01 PM, Dean Jackson  wrote:
> >>
> >> It turns out that many (most?) of the CSS failures are because we no 
> >> longer expose user-installed fonts, e.g. Ahem.
> >>
> >> Options:
> >>
> >> - update lots of tests to load Ahem via @font-face (yuck)
> >> - allow Ahem to be used if installed (weird to special case one font, but 
> >> probably ok)
> >>
> >> Dean
> >>
> >>> On 12 Oct 2018, at 03:26, Philip Jägenstedt  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Alright, I've written a one-off script [1] to find the Safari-only
> >>> failures, and here's the output:
> >>> https://gist.github.com/foolip/4d410ce79416bcdce71feb212159a02e
> >>>
> >>> Barring bugs, each of linked tests or one of its subtests should be
> >>> failing in Safari Technology Preview and passing in stable versions of
> >>> Chrome, Edge and Firefox.
> >>>
> >>> Numerically, most of the failures are in css (622), encoding (135) and
> >>> html (60). With css, it's mostly css/CSS2.
> >>>
> >>> I hope looking through this may be of use to you!
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://github.com/foolip/ad-hoc-wpt-results-analysis
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 11:50 PM Philip Jägenstedt  
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  That filtering capability unfortunately does not yet exist on wpt.fyi
>  but it's a high priority and actively being worked on:
>  https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi/issues/201
> 
>  FWIW, I suspect that these purposes, comparing to the stable versions
>  of all *other* browsers might be the most useful:
>  https://wpt.fyi/results/?product=chrome%5Bstable%5D=edge%5Bstable%5D=firefox%5Bstable%5D=safari%5Bexperimental%5D
> 
>  Again, no way to filter on wpt.fyi, but I'll see if I can download the
>  full results and write a quick script.
> 
>  On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:49 PM Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the intriguing data, Philip.
> >
> > Is there a way to get a list of tests where all other browsers pass but 
> > Safari / WebKit fail?
> >
> > That would allow us to quickly identify the set of tests we can fix to 
> > improve the interoperability across browsers right away.
> >
> > - R. Niwa
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 3:45 AM Philip Jägenstedt  
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi WebKittens,
> >>
> >> Fresh off the bots, I'm excited to report more robust Safari results,
> >> and that Safari WPT pass rates are clearly improving! Thanks to the
> >> hard work of Mike Pennisi [1] we now have the first Safari 12 results:
> >> https://wpt.fyi/results/?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0
> >>
> >> This uses the same setup as for Safari Technology Preview, which has
> >> been running for a while [2] and are the results you see on the
> >> "experimental" view:
> >> https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=experimental
> >>
> >> This appears much more robust than the Safari 11 data we've collected
> >> from Sauce Labs, and we can see a massive improvement between Safari
> >> 11