On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
>> On May 8, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>>
>>> But now talking about testharness.js directly, I object on the grounds of "a
>>> file:// regression test is dirt easy to ha
> On May 8, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
>> But now talking about testharness.js directly, I object on the grounds of "a
>> file:// regression test is dirt easy to hack on and work with, whereas
>> anything that requires me t
> 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
>> LayoutTests/wpt through
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 of writing
> LayoutTests?
>
>
> Settin
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, a
> 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 testharness.js itself, I disag
> 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 run
by all major
> 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
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
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 examples on
> how to run things. I also a
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 wrong with the
> xpc servi
> 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 claiming to be Mac Firefox
>> would be a move
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 Hangouts to try to use f
> 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 for about a year and got
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 wrong with the xpc
service locations and plists, but I think everything else should be o
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 equivalent) working with local webkit
>> builds on
16 matches
Mail list logo
