On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.orgwrote:
1) We don't have notes on why tests are failing. = Why not annotate
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Pam Greene p...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.orgwrote:
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
that
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
that
are not for unimplemented features. And new failures from the merge get
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Jeremy Orlowjor...@chromium.org wrote:
It might be worth going through all the LayoutTest bugs and double check
they're split up into individual root causes (or something approximating
that). I'll try to make time to do a scan in the next week or so, but it'd
I understand the resistance to implement yet another bit of process
and effort around layout tests. I really do. However, I found some
merit in Dirk's idea -- it allows us to clearly see the impact of a
regression.
Sadly, I can't come up with a specific example at the moment, but let
me pull one
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
1) We don't have notes on why tests are failing. = Why not annotate
the tests in test_lists? That's what I've always done.
Once again, we don't want to add more state to the test_expectations. How
may people
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
1) We don't have notes on why tests are failing. = Why not annotate
the tests in test_lists? That's what I've always done.
Once again, we
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.orgwrote:
If you somehow managed to not see any comments in this file, I think
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.orgwrote:
Notes in test_expectations.txt are like comments in source code: A great
boon.
I've herd differing opinions, but you're the definitely the
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
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
This seems to me like a lot more work for minimal gain. Because
you've thought more about it than I have, it makes me think I'm
misunderstanding something. Can you explain this more simply, in
terms of use cases?
Here's what I think you're saying:
1) We don't have notes on why tests are
At least in the batch of tests I examined, the ones that needed
re-baselining weren't tests we'd originally failed and suddenly started
passing. They were new tests that nobody had ever taken a good look at.
If that matches everyone else's experience, then all we need is an UNTRIAGED
annotation
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,
storing, and using expected-bad results. Of course, I may be completely
wrong.
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 4:50 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
This is all good feedback, thanks! To clarify, though: what do you
think the cost will be? Perhaps you are assuming things about how I
would implement this that are different than what I had in mind.
Some amount of your
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@chromium.orgwrote:
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 the cost will be? Perhaps you are assuming things about how I
would
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
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Pam Greene p...@chromium.org wrote:
At least in the batch of tests I examined, the ones that needed
re-baselining weren't tests we'd originally failed and suddenly started
passing. They were new tests that nobody had ever taken a good look at.
If that matches
20 matches
Mail list logo
