Re: [webkit-dev] Another WPT bite

> On May 8, 2017, at 10:42 PM, youenn fablet wrote: > > testharness.js does not need an http server. Some WPT goodies need the WPT > server. I misunderstood since we were also discussing: >> To continue moving forward, some of us are proposing to serve all tests in >>

Re: [webkit-dev] Another WPT bite

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Brady Eidson wrote: > On May 8, 2017, at 9:31 PM, youenn fablet wrote: > > Hi all, > > Discussing with some WebKittens, testharness.js is more and more used in > WebKit. > Is it time to make testharness.js the recommended way

Re: [webkit-dev] Another WPT bite

testharness.js does not need an http server. Some WPT goodies need the WPT server. I agree different frameworks offer different benefits. There is no reason we should mandate one framework in particular. In case there is no specific needs, it makes sense to me to recommend using testharness.js,

Re: [webkit-dev] Another WPT bite

> On May 8, 2017, at 9:31 PM, youenn fablet wrote: > > Hi all, > > Discussing with some WebKittens, testharness.js is more and more used in > WebKit. > Is it time to make testharness.js the recommended way of writing LayoutTests? Setting aside the pros or cons of

Re: [webkit-dev] Another WPT bite

> On May 8, 2017, at 9:44 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote: > >> Is it time to make testharness.js the recommended way of writing LayoutTests? > > What are the costs and benefits of testharness.js? Benefit: - Tests would be more easily upstreamable to web-platform-tests, which are

Re: [webkit-dev] Another WPT bite

> Is it time to make testharness.js the recommended way of writing LayoutTests? What are the costs and benefits of testharness.js? We usually try to make regression tests reductions of some larger problem to aid debugging and to make testing fast. But testharness.js is 95kB. That's kind of the

[webkit-dev] Another WPT bite

Hi all, Discussing with some WebKittens, testharness.js is more and more used in WebKit. Is it time to make testharness.js the recommended way of writing LayoutTests? To continue moving forward, some of us are proposing to serve all tests in LayoutTests/wpt through the WPT server [1]. This would

Re: [webkit-dev] Clang tidy

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > On May 3, 2017, at 6:31 PM, Olmstead, Don wrote: > > I took some time today to see how clang-tidy can be run on WebKit code and > openedhttps://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171632 with some

Re: [webkit-dev] ccache on mac

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Alex Christensen wrote: > It would be nice if we could just get the CMake built WebKit working with > run-safari and run-webkit-tests. That’s something I’ve been meaning to do > for a while but haven’t gotten around to it. Something is

Re: [webkit-dev] User agent woes

> On May 8, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> The ideal scenario would be for Google Hangouts to correctly handle WebKit >> UA strings on X11 platforms. It seems like Safari

Re: [webkit-dev] User agent woes

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: The ideal scenario would be for Google Hangouts to correctly handle WebKit UA strings on X11 platforms. It seems like Safari claiming to be Mac Firefox would be a move in the wrong direction. (It might also cause

Re: [webkit-dev] User agent woes

> On May 7, 2017, at 8:11 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Hi Maciej, > > I agree with basically everything you wrote, except I recommend not using OS > X as the operating system string in the default user agent except when > actually running on macOS. We tried this

Re: [webkit-dev] ccache on mac

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:32 AM, youenn fablet wrote: > I had this setup working a year or so ago. I was using the regular Mac > "make" build. > > Le dim. 7 mai 2017 à 19:28, Ben Kelly a écrit : > >> Hi all, >> >> Does anyone have ccache (or an