On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Balazs Kelemen kbal...@webkit.org wrote:
So the unit tests are superfluous. In particular, if I had to pick
between
On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Balazs Kelemen kbal...@webkit.org wrote:
So the unit tests are superfluous. In particular, if I had to pick between
only having unit tests or only having regression tests, I might pick unit
So the unit tests are superfluous. In particular, if I had to
pick between only having unit tests or only having regression
tests, I might pick unit tests. But if I already have regression
tests then I'm unlikely to want to incur technical debt to build
unit tests,
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Balazs Kelemen kbal...@webkit.org wrote:
So the unit tests are superfluous. In particular, if I had to pick
between only having unit tests or only having regression tests, I might
pick unit tests. But if I already have regression tests then I'm unlikely
to
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Balazs Kelemen kbal...@webkit.org wrote:
So the unit tests are superfluous. In particular, if I had to pick
between only having unit tests or only having regression tests, I might
pick unit tests. But if I already have regression tests then I'm unlikely
to
Untested code is inherently harder to maintain in my experience. Most of
the time, committing untested code is just implanting technical debt that
someone will have to pay later.
I think the above, by its own, summarizes what people advocating in favor
of tests (for any area of the project,
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files
(except for the Apple Win port).
Can we explicitly switch to the TestExpectations files
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Zoltan Herczeg zherc...@webkit.org wrote:
Hi Dirk,
At any rate, I believe we are definitely open to adding new features;
feel free to suggest them or work on them!
I am happy to hear that.
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88680
This is definitely a
Hi,
Dirk Pranke írta:
I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files
(except for the Apple Win port).
Can we explicitly switch to the TestExpectations files at this point
and drop support for Skipped files on
On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
Hi,
Dirk Pranke írta:
I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files
(except for the Apple Win port).
Can we explicitly switch to the TestExpectations files at
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen kbal...@webkit.org wrote:
On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
Hi,
Dirk Pranke írta:
I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files
(except for the
On 06/08/2012 05:21 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemenkbal...@webkit.org wrote:
On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
Hi,
Dirk Pranke írta:
I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
TestExpectations files or a combination of
On Jun 8, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Balazs Kelemen wrote:
On 06/08/2012 05:21 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemenkbal...@webkit.org wrote:
On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
Hi,
Dirk Pranke írta:
I believe most if not all of the ports have started
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba o...@inf.u-szeged.huwrote:
Hi,
Dirk Pranke írta:
I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files
(except for the Apple Win port).
Can we explicitly
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Balazs Kelemen wrote:
On 06/08/2012 05:21 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemenkbal...@webkit.org wrote:
On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
I don't see why it would make sense to keep two parallel tools for this
once all the workflow bugs people have are addressed.
The reason is easy. In the past when people tried to add new features to
NRWT, they were not allowed to because the feature is not useful for NRWT
devs. Eventually
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Zoltan Herczeg zherc...@webkit.org wrote:
Hi,
I don't see why it would make sense to keep two parallel tools for this
once all the workflow bugs people have are addressed.
The reason is easy. In the past when people tried to add new features to
NRWT, they
On Jun 8, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Balazs Kelemen wrote:
On 06/08/2012 05:21 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemenkbal...@webkit.org wrote:
On
Hi Ossy,
Thanks for your reply ...
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba o...@inf.u-szeged.hu wrote:
Hi,
Dirk Pranke írta:
I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files
(except for the Apple
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen kbal...@webkit.org wrote:
On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
Hi,
Dirk Pranke írta:
I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
TestExpectations
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Zoltan Herczeg zherc...@webkit.org wrote:
Hi,
I don't see why it would make sense to keep two parallel tools for this
once all the workflow bugs people have are addressed.
The reason is easy. In the past when people tried to add new features to
NRWT, they
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen kbal...@webkit.org wrote:
On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
Hi,
Dirk Pranke írta:
I believe most if not all of
I'm all for getting rid of ORWT. I've observed some wrong code paths there
that are probably not even used anymore. It makes more difficult to hack on
a code which almost nobody uses and whose part of it is wrong and
misleading.
NRWT is not that easy thought, but I see the unittests as an
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
It's a lot harder to dive into, a lot more cumbersome to improve, and not
any easier to maintain.
I definitely agree that NRWT is more complicated than it seems like it
should be; it got contorted as we added all the
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
It's a lot harder to dive into, a lot more cumbersome to improve, and not
any easier to maintain.
I definitely agree that NRWT is more complicated than it seems like it
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen kbal...@webkit.org wrote:
On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
It's a lot harder to dive into, a lot more cumbersome to improve, and
not
any easier to maintain.
On Jun 8, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
It's a lot harder to dive into, a lot more cumbersome
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
I agree that we've accumulated way too many unit tests in webkitpy and
some of our unit test code is hideous but I think it's quite unrealistic
not to have any unit tests.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo fpi...@apple.com wrote:
It's a lot harder to dive into, a lot more cumbersome to improve, and not
any easier to maintain.
I
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
I don't think that's true from my experience working on webkitpy so far. The
root of problem is that we support way too many configurations platforms,
and Chromium port has had a completely different test runner program
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
Most of these abstractions were either added to make testing easier
(and faster since we didn't have to write to a real filesystem)
That sounds like a bad idea.
- Ryosuke
___
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Ojan Vafai o...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
Most of these abstractions were either added to make testing easier
(and faster
Hi Dirk,
At any rate, I believe we are definitely open to adding new features;
feel free to suggest them or work on them!
I am happy to hear that.
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88680
This is definitely a right step! And it looks like still a lot of things
to do before NRWT reach
I believe most if not all of the ports have started using either
TestExpectations files or a combination of TestExpectations files
(except for the Apple Win port).
Can we explicitly switch to the TestExpectations files at this point
and drop support for Skipped files on the other ports (and
35 matches
Mail list logo
