Re: [webkit-dev] Huge improvement in Safari results on wpt.fyi
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
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
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
Re: [webkit-dev] Huge improvement in Safari results on wpt.fyi
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. 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 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. -- 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 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] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi/pull/609 P.P.S. Possible regressions in Safari TP: https://wpt.fyi/results/css/vendor-imports/mozilla/mozilla-central-reftests/shapes1?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1
Re: [webkit-dev] Huge improvement in Safari results on wpt.fyi
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. 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 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] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi/pull/609 > > P.P.S. Possible regressions in Safari TP: > https://wpt.fyi/results/css/vendor-imports/mozilla/mozilla-central-reftests/shapes1?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1 >
Re: [webkit-dev] Huge improvement in Safari results on wpt.fyi
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] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi/pull/609 >> >> P.P.S. Possible regressions in Safari TP: >> https://wpt.fyi/results/css/vendor-imports/mozilla/mozilla-central-reftests/shapes1?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1 >> https://wpt.fyi/results/service-workers/service-worker/extendable-event-async-waituntil.https.html?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1 >> https://wpt.fyi/results/service-workers/service-worker/skip-waiting-installed.https.html?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1 >> ___ >> 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] Huge improvement in Safari results on wpt.fyi
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] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi/pull/609 > > P.P.S. Possible regressions in Safari TP: > > https://wpt.fyi/results/css/vendor-imports/mozilla/mozilla-central-reftests/shapes1?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1 > > https://wpt.fyi/results/service-workers/service-worker/extendable-event-async-waituntil.https.html?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1 > > https://wpt.fyi/results/service-workers/service-worker/skip-waiting-installed.https.html?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1 > ___ > 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] Huge improvement in Safari results on wpt.fyi
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] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt.fyi/pull/609 P.P.S. Possible regressions in Safari TP: https://wpt.fyi/results/css/vendor-imports/mozilla/mozilla-central-reftests/shapes1?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1 https://wpt.fyi/results/service-workers/service-worker/extendable-event-async-waituntil.https.html?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1 https://wpt.fyi/results/service-workers/service-worker/skip-waiting-installed.https.html?sha=ee2e69bfb1=safari-12.0=safari-12.1 ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
