Honestly, I don't know. At least not w/o reading findNextLineBreak. It's
not a part of the code I've had to look into in great detail yet.
You can ask on #webkit, but it's better if you just read the source
yourself:
Looks like folks don't have a strong opinion about this topic. I'd
recommend just picking something that works and giving it a try. I
suspect many different frameworks would all work fine.
Adam
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Dirk Pranke dpra...@chromium.org wrote:
I'd add maintained to
I think having something the WebKit community owns and controls is preferred
over importing and using a third-party library.
So that makes me prefer TestWebKitAPI (or something built from/on it) over
gtest. And TestWebKitAPI already has a very simple test for WTF::Vector — just
begging to be
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Timothy Hatcher timo...@apple.com wrote:
I think having something the WebKit community owns and controls is
preferred over importing and using a third-party library.
So that makes me prefer TestWebKitAPI (or something built from/on it) over
gtest. And
I am really not an expert on testing frameworks, and just put together
something that met my needs (as has been the tradition in this project). That
said, the only features I like about TestWebKitAPI is that I know how it works
and can hack
it to do what I want, and that it has the ability to
I believe both maruel and jcivelli have had experience contributing changes
to gtest.
While I wouldn't characterize its code as simple, I haven't had trouble
understanding it. It is a fairly mature project, having been used
internally at Google for ages. It seems to be fairly well maintained,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Sam Weinig wei...@apple.com wrote:
Is a death test as scary as it sounds?
:)
Useful if you want to verify that the program crashes. fwiw, chromium uses
this to verify that asserts fire in debug in particular scenarios.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
I believe both maruel and jcivelli have had experience contributing changes
to gtest.
While I wouldn't characterize its code as simple, I haven't had trouble
understanding it. It is a fairly mature project, having been
Hi,
I've just found a problem in our generated code for handling optional
parameters. Suppose we define a method with optional parameter in numeric
type, like the following in IDL:
Foo bar(in [Optional] long long start, in [Optional] long long
end);
And we declare our C++ method as the
On Apr 20, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Jian Li wrote:
Hi,
I've just found a problem in our generated code for handling optional
parameters. Suppose we define a method with optional parameter in numeric
type, like the following in IDL:
Foo bar(in [Optional] long long start, in [Optional]
I am referring to Blob.slice(start, end) that mimics Array.slice. Where in
WebIDL has this behavior defined? Sorry I can't find it in the spec.
For Array.slice(start, end), both Safari and Chrome treat passing undefined
as omitted parameter, while Firefox and IE treat passing undefined as 0. If
Hi Brent,
I think we should consider sharding the PNG's out into different archives.
I think another option would be to make a concerted effort to convert
some of these tests into reftests. It would be interesting for someone
to sample some of platform-specific tests and see how many could be
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Brent Fulgham bfulg...@gmail.com wrote:
My initial knee-jerk reaction was to blame this on the multitude of
Chromium layout archives (16 at last count). Clearly this is needless bloat
-- after all, what could possibly be the difference between
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Jian Li jia...@chromium.org wrote:
I am referring to Blob.slice(start, end) that mimics Array.slice. Where in
WebIDL has this behavior defined? Sorry I can't find it in the spec.
For
Just my two cents.
There is an elaborate specification how Array.prototype.slice should
treat undefined parameters, see ECMAScript 5, 15.4.4.10. Please, note
that the spec treats undefined start and end differently: start is
converted with ToInteger which turns undefined into 0, while end is
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2011, at 21:33, Brent Fulgham bfulg...@gmail.com wrote:
As I sat tonight, waiting for my local repository to update (~1 hour and
counting at this point), I had a bit of free time to contemplate the
ever-growing size of the platform results of the layout test
Hi Brent,
In a past thread, I noted that we could do a couple of things to reduce
platform-specific results, and the overall size of layout test results. In
order of increasing difficulty:
* Convert pixel tests to dumpAsText tests when pixel output is unnecessary
(merely requires adding a
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
* Convert pixel tests to dumpAsText tests when pixel output is unnecessary
(merely requires adding a command to the test file)
I actively work on this effort for LayoutTests/editing. I don't necessarily
spend all of
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Ryosuke Niwa ryosuke.n...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.comwrote:
* Convert tests to reftests
I don't think we should do this until all ports start using
new-run-webkit-tests on their bots.
It's the most
19 matches
Mail list logo
