Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:44 AM, James Graham wrote: > On 04/11/15 11:41, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >> The media tests are better than I thought --- I found more. They don't >> test >> the variety of problematic media files that our mochitests do, but maybe >> that's not

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:17 AM, James Graham wrote: > On 04/11/15 11:12, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >> Well sure, I agree that taking mochitests as the input to a test-writing >>> effort is a good idea. I see this as being very different to blindly >>> shimming

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On 04/11/15 11:41, Robert O'Callahan wrote: Sure. https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/issues/2304 Thanks! The media tests are better than I thought --- I found more. They don't test the variety of problematic media files that our mochitests do, but maybe that's not in scope? Should we

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:14 PM, James Graham wrote: > On 03/11/15 22:08, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > Why not create a Mochitest compatibility layer over testharness.js so >> that tests that only use SimpleTest.waitForExplicitFinish(), >> SimpleTest.finish(), is(), todo()

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On 04/11/15 10:24, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:14 PM, James Graham wrote: On 03/11/15 22:08, Robert O'Callahan wrote: Why not create a Mochitest compatibility layer over testharness.js so that tests that only use

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:50 PM, James Graham wrote: > On 04/11/15 10:24, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:14 PM, James Graham >> wrote: >> >> On 03/11/15 22:08, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >>> >>> Why not create a Mochitest

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On 04/11/15 11:12, Robert O'Callahan wrote: Well sure, I agree that taking mochitests as the input to a test-writing effort is a good idea. I see this as being very different to blindly shimming mochitests into the wpt harness. Having said that, however, I don't think people have complained a

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On 02/11/15 18:43, Josh Matthews wrote: https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Meeting-2015-11-02 For the record, I'm very against trying to run mochitests in Servo. As I understand it the additional features it offers over wpt are mostly because it leverages gecko-internal APIs that Servo

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

You can also see it here publicly: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HYoEo5Vx9XuFWFh_1zGWtT-pvebNqspY-PqbUzh3y7Q/pubhtml There's nothing private about it! I just gave up after a half an hour trying to figure out "how do I share this google doc so that everyone in Mozilla+a list of

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, James Graham wrote: > On 02/11/15 18:43, Josh Matthews wrote: > >> https://github.com/servo/servo/wiki/Meeting-2015-11-02 >> > > For the record, I'm very against trying to run mochitests in Servo. As I > understand it the additional

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

We probably can't do it in an automated way; tests being converted to WPT need to match spec and usually also need a spec link in the top. We could, however, import them wholesale into Servo's tests/wpt/mozilla/foo, and then manually pick through them. -Manish Goregaokar On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Manish Goregaokar wrote: > That sounds like a good idea. Perhaps we should do this on the > mozilla-central side; move things out of mochitest into WPT? > > Is there an easy way of identifying browser-agnostic mochitests? > Maybe grepping

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

On 04/11/15 04:52, Manish Goregaokar wrote: * In the long term having multiple APIs for writing tests that people have to learn in order to read tests is a big net negative. If we allow mochitests to be upstreamed with a shim we should expect other vendors to do the same, and to end up with half

Re: [dev-servo] Meeting notes 11/2 (review carry-over; test coverage; 2016 roadmap; rebase/autosquash; PR queue; debug logging; CSSWG reftests)

> 2016 Roadmap > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HYoEo5Vx9XuFWFh_1zGWtT-pvebNqspY-PqbUzh3y7Q/edit#gid=0 I seem this document is not public for users who does not have a 'at mozilla.org' account. Could you change the permission? 2015-11-03 3:43 GMT+09:00 Josh Matthews