I'm not sure if we reached a conclusion on this, but I don't like a
couple of aspects of the Firefox logic (assuming I understood it
correctly).
The way I would look at it, the browser always has a current context
that indicates the current base to use for relative URIs. In the case
where you are
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
So, you then get the following algorithm:
1) if there is a ':' in the URI, you split the URI into scheme and
scheme-specific part.
2
Hi,
That's something that changed a couple days ago in revision 36214. If
your build is older than that, you do need to put the Layout/ in
front.
-- Dirk
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:27 AM, MORITA Hajime morr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I've tried to run a subset of webkit layout test using
Hi all,
If you never run layout tests or modify test_expectations.txt, you can
stop reading.
As part of the process to upstream our layout test infrastructure, I
have just checked in a change that changes our test infrastructure to
conform to WebKit's in how we specify test names.
Specifically,
As a side thread to the Core Principles / home button thread that
just went around, I have the following question:
Is it by design that if I click on a new tab or a new window, and I
have my preference set to open this page on the home page rather
than use the new tab page, we still show the new
I have either deleted or submitted patches to upstream all of the
remaining tests under chrome/ . There are a few that appear to be
platform-specific, but most weren't. Assuming they clear the review
process over the weekend, I intended to remove the chrome/ dir on
Monday and submit patches to
Hi all,
A number of us have drawn up a plan for getting the rest of our layout
tests infrastructure upstreamed to webkit.org. You can read about it
here:
http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/upstreaminglayouttests
In addition to making us resemble other webkit ports by doing this
tools use the upstream
copy. We should minimize as much as possible, the amount of time that we
have these scripts forked. Can we move (13) to be (6)? Then we can delete
the downstream run_webkit_tests.py.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
Hi all,
A number
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:28 PM, David Levin le...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
We could do this, but we'd have to add logic to track when directories
were done, and arbitrarily delay printing results about other
directories
If I'm running on Windows, I know to ignore the latter. That's a
pretty big difference.
-- Dirk
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Avi Drissman a...@chromium.org wrote:
What the difference between:
★ this extension doesn't work at all wh
and
★ As mentioned, this
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@google.com wrote:
I thought we had agreed on printing out any unexpected failures in
real-time, no?
Also, I do think it would be worthwhile to print each directory as it
finishes. We're getting to the point where we shard all the big
Hi all,
If you never run the webkit layout tests, you can stop reading.
Otherwise, earlier today I checked in a patch that should make the
output much less verbose in the normal case. From the CL:
First, a number of log messages have had their levels changed (mostly to
make them quieter).
.
dave
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
Hi all,
If you never run the webkit layout tests, you can stop reading.
Otherwise, earlier today I checked in a patch that should make the
output much less verbose in the normal case. From the CL:
First
Isn't the shared worker tied to the SOP? If so, then it seems to me
that you would want the secure status to change just as if the parent
window had done the request directly.
If I think I'm on a secure page, I certainly don't want my app doing
insecure activities behind my back.
I almost feel
Our messages crossed in the ether ...
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@google.com wrote:
+chromium-dev as others who look at the waterfall might also be confused.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
Sending out random people, because it's
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Dimitri
Glazkov dglaz...@google.com wrote:
How about we turn red for unexpected crashiness?
Makes sense to me. We can just not retry tests that unexpectedly crash.
I'll make this change if
As an aside, have we looked at using DirectWrite() on Windows?
-- Dirk
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Jeremy Moskovich jer...@chromium.org wrote:
Re http://crbug.com/27195 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31802 :
Dan Bernstein says that Core Text on Leopard has performance issues
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Chris Bentzel cbent...@google.com wrote:
How do most people do cross-platform validation prior to submitting code?
Do you mostly rely on the try-bots, or do you also patch the diffs to your
different dev environments and build and test locally?
I build on the
, 2009 at 20:27, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
Hi all,
Just a heads' up ... we've discovered a bug in Issue Tracker that has
caused a few of our issues (along with a issues from other projects)
to be partially deleted from the database. The team is aware of the
problem and working
Hi all,
Just a heads' up ... we've discovered a bug in Issue Tracker that has
caused a few of our issues (along with a issues from other projects)
to be partially deleted from the database. The team is aware of the
problem and working on a solution, but it may not be fully patched
until after
I started getting this on my mac at home, and haven't taken the time
to track it down yet. Is it possible your environment got switched
from the svn:// checkout to an https:// read-only checkout?
-- Dirk
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Jens Alfke s...@chromium.org wrote:
A few days ago I
Having just come off sheriffing four days in the past two weeks ...
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
At lunch today, a few of us discussed the idea of moving from two sheriffs
to four.
There are several reasons we contemplated such a change:
* The
+1. Great idea!
-- Dirk
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Paweł Hajdan Jr.
phajdan...@chromium.org wrote:
I was just looking at the buildbot cycle stats
at http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/stats and realized that on
many bots the most frequently failing tests are browser_tests and
Hi all,
Who are the moderators for this list? There was someone (djodoin) who
has joined as a new member and apparently is waiting for his message
to be sent, but I'm wondering if all of the likely moderators are on
vacation or otherwise out ...
-- Dirk
--
Chromium Developers mailing list:
+1. I also wonder if it might be useful to have a names file/service
for configs so I don't have to remember the full URL when doing a
gclient config ...
-- Dirk
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Ben Goodger (Google) b...@chromium.org wrote:
+1. This would be fab. There are so many test
test_shell being a test shell used mostly for non-interactive testing,
we haven't given a lot of concern to its perfomance AFAIK. I'm not
even sure how long of a lifespan it'll have since we aim to
merge/replace it with WebKit's DumpRenderTree at some point soon.
Is there some reason you're not
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Marshall Greenblatt
magreenbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
test_shell being a test shell used mostly for non-interactive testing,
we haven't given a lot of concern to its perfomance AFAIK. I'm
Yeah, we would have to work out a way of handling these sorts of features.
-- Dirk
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Marshall Greenblatt
magreenbl
Hi all,
I have just checked in a new set of baselines that should allow you to
run the layout tests on Win 7 as well as Vista and XP.
For those of you playing along at home, this means that if you have a
baseline that is windows 7 specific, or is the same across 7, Vista,
and XP, check it into
Anyone who wants to follow along on this, I've filed
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=26659 to track it.
-- Dirk
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
Sure. I was floating the idea first before doing any work, but I'll
just grab an existing
those.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
If you've never run run_webkit_tests to run the layout test
regression, or don't care about it, you can stop reading ...
If you have run it, and you're like me, you've probably wondered a lot
about the output
If you've never run run_webkit_tests to run the layout test
regression, or don't care about it, you can stop reading ...
If you have run it, and you're like me, you've probably wondered a lot
about the output ... questions like:
1) what do the numbers printed at the beginning of the test mean?
Hm. I actually wrote that test, and I'm surprised that it's timing
out. I'll take a look at it as well. It is a slow test, because it's
basically trying to reproduce a stack overflow.
-- Dirk
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Yuta Kitamura yu...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm also looking at
+1
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Pam Greene p...@chromium.org wrote:
If there are areas that nobody knows anything about, that's a lack that's
hobbling us. Suppose we take the entire list of directories, slap it into a
doc, and assign at least one owner to everything. For the areas that
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
I think we need to change something. I am not sure what -- I have
ideas, but -- I would appreciate some collective thinking on this.
PROBLEM: We accumulate more test failures via WebKit rolls than we fix
with our
Hi all,
Someone from Mozilla is talking about their proposed new security
spec, CSP, today at Stanford.
I'm planning to go; was anyone else from MTV aware of this and hoping
to go? I can send out a summary of the talk afterwards if there's
interest.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/CSP/Spec
Stephen's right; if that doesn't fix things, let me know and I'll look at it.
-- Dirk
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Stephen White senorbla...@chromium.org wrote:
I think that's a Release builder, and the tests are marked DEBUG, no?
Stephen
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Avi Drissman
Ojan,
As you know, run_webkit_tests doesn't have the concept of it's okay
that there are no expected results.
Several other people have also mentioned to me that it would be nice
if it did, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. I
don't know that I would consider tests marked
Hi all,
If you don't run layout_tests or ever need to modify
test_expecations.txt, you can ignore this ...
As discussed earlier this week, we've added the ability to indicate
whether or not a test is expected to produce incorrect text output
(either a bad render tree or bad simplified text
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
I don't think this is just about ignoring image-only results on mac for
the short-term. My subjective sense is that we have many tests that start
out as failing only image comparisons (e.g. due to theming), but over time
No, there's no way to do that but it would be easy enough to add.
-- Dirk
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
Yes, exactly. I'm working on some additional reports and dashboards
that will allow us to track the funnel of finds/fixes better as well.
-- Dirk
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Dimitri Glazkov dglaz...@chromium.org wrote:
Yep. Dirk was the one to suggest bringing it back. I didn't put this
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
I have just landed a patch that enables us to run layout tests on
Vista as well as XP.
Thanks for doing this! Needing to run the tests on a 32bit XP
...@chromium.org
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
Hi all,
I have just landed a patch that enables us to run layout tests on
Vista as well as XP.
In theory, you should continue to use the tools just as you have in
the past, and everything will work
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Ojan Vafaio...@chromium.org wrote:
The end goal is to be in a state where we have near zero failing tests that
are not for unimplemented features. And new failures from the merge get
addressed within a week.
Once we're at that point, would this new
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:52 PM, David Levinle...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Ojan Vafaio...@chromium.org wrote:
The end goal is to be in a state where we have near zero failing tests
Hi all,
As Glenn noted, we made great progress last week in rebaselining the
tests. Unfortunately, we don't have a mechanism to preserve the
knowledge we gained last week as to whether or not tests need to be
rebaselined or not, and why not. As a result, it's easy to imagine
that we'd need to
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Peter Kastingpkast...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Pam Greene p...@chromium.org wrote:
I'm not convinced that passing tests we used to fail, or failing tests
differently, happens often enough to warrant the extra work of producing,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Ojan Vafaio...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
This is all good feedback, thanks! To clarify, though: what do you
think
I also fear that I may have unwanted files sneaking in. This was less
of an issue with Perforce since you have to manually 'p4 edit' files
first anyway.
I'll be curious to see if there's a consensus preference one way or
another. Maybe we can make this a gclient config setting or something?
--
I would love to enable that feature ... anyone know how to do that for
Adium on the Mac (IRC support is new in the 1.4 beta)?
Failing that, Colloquy?
-- Dirk
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruelmar...@chromium.org wrote:
Most irc clients have an option to beep, flash or shutdown
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Darin Fisherda...@chromium.org wrote:
I think we need to make it possible for the buildbots to run in a mode where
there are absolutely no generated files output into the source directory.
How can we make this happen?
(I understand that some users like having
(cc'ing chromium-discuss, bcc'ing chromium-dev)
It is? How do you specify keywords in Chrome's Bookmarks editor?
-- Dirk
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Peter Kastingpkast...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Igor Gatis igorga...@gmail.com wrote:
(please forgive me if
-1000 to manual changelog updates
+1 to a changelog populated by a commit trigger. Having a
local/offline copy of the change history can be useful, in the absence
of git.
-100 to reverts deleting stuff from changelogs. changelogs should be
(except in exceptional circumstances) append only, just
Being the person who perpetrated this crime, if someone could even
tell me how to fix it, that would be an improvement. It seems like
nsylvain is the only one with the appropriate mojo (at least in the
evenings...)
-- Dirk
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Dan Kegeld...@kegel.com wrote:
Stop
Hi all,
(If you don't ever care to run the webkit layout tests, you can skip this note).
As most of you are no doubt aware, we currently can only run the
webkit layout_tests on windows XP. For some of us who primarily
develop on 64-bit Vista, this is inconvenient at best, and this is
only going
it). It looks for version specific and then falls back
to generic platform files so we only have to dup the ones that are os
version specific.
TVL
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@google.com wrote:
Hi all,
(If you don't ever care to run the webkit layout tests, you can
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Scherkusscher...@chromium.org wrote:
I just checked in a Chromium-specific version of FFmpeg that only includes
Ogg+Theora+Vorbis support.
If you previously had any binaries located in third_party/ffmpeg/binaries,
you may have to clobber that entire
Okay, I think I've figured this out and it's a relatively undocumented
aspect of our win builds (from what I can tell).
The third_party/cygwin install we have has a modified version of
cygwin1.dll , which has been patched to tell cygwin the root is
third_party/cygwin rather than /. In order for
2009/7/6 David Jones ds...@163.com:
Okay, I think I've figured this out and it's a relatively undocumented
aspect of our win builds (from what I can tell).
The third_party/cygwin install we have has a modified version of
cygwin1.dll , which has been patched to tell cygwin the root is
Debugging this a bit more ... it seems to be some sort of XP vs. Vista
thing. If I run wdiff exp.txt act.txt in a bash shell or a command
prompt on Vista, it works. On XP, it works in a bash shell, but in a
command prompt, I get the /tmp error. It looks like XP is expecting
to find the cygwin
Hi Marc-Antoine,
I am getting the same wdiff: /tmp/t101c.0: No such file or directory
errors ... I'm running an XP VM on a Vista 64 host, but I've tried
both local files (running the tests on a virtual drive) as well as a
network share to the host VM. I've tried the /etc/fstab, the
62 matches
Mail list logo
