Hi,
I improved a bit W3C test importer lately.
First, I'd like to remind people importing tests (great) without the
importer (copy/paste a directory e.g.) to update
LayoutTests/imported/w3c/resources/ImportExpectations.
That allows me to refresh those tests when doing a full resync more quickly.
We are still far from importing into WebKit the whole test set from
web-platform-tests repo.
Improving the situation here would already be a great step forward.
It would also be good to regularly run the whole web-platform-tests repo
test set so as to get statistics in terms of feature alignment a
On 05/02/2014 13:16 , Lukasz Bialek wrote:
What do you think about it? Is it worth paying some time for importing
those tests and then aligning WebKit with W3C specification?
Depending on the amount of energy you're willing to dedicate to this,
the ideal option could well be to import those te
Hi all,
Some time ago there was a conversation about importing W3C tests into
LayoutTests for WebKit
(https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2013-November/025876.html).
This conversation was paused in November with conclusion, that it may be a
good idea.
A brief research showed, that
I created a bug to track this (serve imported w3c tests using wptserve:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127094).
I also plan to work on merging Blink patches to allow checking
testharness-based tests without the use of any -expected file:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127095.
2
Ryosuke and I discussed this a bit over IRC. Ryosuke's main concern was
that supporting multiple document roots adds a fair amount of complexity to
NRWT. Conceptually, it's probably easier to add support to run the W3C's
new server (known as wptserve) and then maybe use it for *all* imported
tests
On 06/01/2014 20:23 , Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
I don't think we should do this given that the python server has been
added to W3C testing harness, and they're gonna convert all existing
tests to use that instead:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/2014JanMar/.html
We should sim
I don't think we should do this given that the python server has been added
to W3C testing harness, and they're gonna convert all existing tests to use
that instead:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/2014JanMar/.html
We should simply wait for that effort to take place and a
The way I got around this when I was first working on it was to simply map
imported/w3c onto a subdirectory of the document root in apache; it's a two
line change.
For some time I've toyed with the idea of changing the DocumentRoot to just
be LayoutTests/, so that any test could be run over http d
As long as the newly imported tests use relative URLs, alias may be used as
a workaround. I will give it a try.
Bug entry is at https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125339
Any further help appreciated,
Youenn
2013/12/6 Darin Adler
> If that's really ends up being super hard we can always
If that's really ends up being super hard we can always put yet another
third-party or imported directory inside the http directory as previously
suggested. it's annoying to have three different places for imported tests and
code, but not something I want to hold us up for a long time.
-- Dari
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:48 AM, youenn fablet wrote:
>
> I am planning to add some XHR tests from
> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests.
> My initial plan was to add them in a subdirectory of
> LayoutTests/http/tests/w3c.
> If adding them i
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:48 AM, youenn fablet wrote:
>
> I am planning to add some XHR tests from
> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests.
> My initial plan was to add them in a subdirectory of
> LayoutTests/http/tests/w3c.
> If adding them
On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:48 AM, youenn fablet wrote:
> I am planning to add some XHR tests from
> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests.
> My initial plan was to add them in a subdirectory of
> LayoutTests/http/tests/w3c.
> If adding them into LayoutTests/imported/w3c, that would probably req
I am planning to add some XHR tests from
https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests.
My initial plan was to add them in a subdirectory of
LayoutTests/http/tests/w3c.
If adding them into LayoutTests/imported/w3c, that would probably require
updating the test scripts to start/stop the HTTP test server
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Sergio Villar Senin wrote:
> On 21/11/13 09:16,
> - R. Niwa
> wrote:
> > Maciej says he'd rather see w3c directory under imported directory so
> > I'm doing that.
>
> That was not done for other set of imported tests. Are you planning to
> move them also to that s
On 21/11/13 09:16, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Maciej says he'd rather see w3c directory under imported directory so
> I'm doing that.
That was not done for other set of imported tests. Are you planning to
move them also to that same place?
BR
___
webkit-dev
On Nov 21, 2013, at 00:01 , Ryosuke Niwa
mailto:rn...@webkit.org>> wrote:
Hi,
There has been a lot of discussions about importing W3C tests.
Since I'm already trying to enable HTML template elements, I've decided to take
lead on this and add LayoutTests/w3c directory as we've previously come t
Maciej says he'd rather see w3c directory under imported directory so I'm
doing that.
- R. Niwa
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There has been a lot of discussions about importing W3C tests.
>
> Since I'm already trying to enable HTML template elements, I've deci
Hi,
There has been a lot of discussions about importing W3C tests.
Since I'm already trying to enable HTML template elements, I've decided to
take lead on this and add LayoutTests/w3c directory as we've previously
come to consensus.
I've posted a patch to import some of HTML template elements te
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Jacob Goldstein wrote:
> As a side note to this discussion, there is talk in the W3C community
> regarding their test approval process. At the recent working group
> meetings in Germany the idea was floated to simply approve all tests that
> are currently waiting
On May 23, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> Are you concerned just about the actual pixel results or also about keeping
>> render tree dumps up to date?
>
> Both are more maintenance than a text-only test. In my experience
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> Are you concerned just about the actual pixel results or also about keeping
> render tree dumps up to date?
Both are more maintenance than a text-only test. In my experience,
maintaining pixel tests is more expensive, but I also don't
On 5/23/12 2:30 PM, "Maciej Stachowiak" wrote:
>
>On May 23, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> The only sane argument I've heard so far to gate pixel tests is that
>the
> correctness of such tests need to be manually i
On May 23, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
The only sane argument I've heard so far to gate pixel tests is that the
correctness of such tests need to be manually inspected, which requires
a
lot of manual labor and i
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> > The only sane argument I've heard so far to gate pixel tests is that the
>> > correctness of such tests need to be manually inspected, which requires
>> > a
>> > lot of manual labor and is very error prone.
>>
>> I'm assuming the above incl
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
> Not so: if the tests we had had 100% coverage, then importing more
> tests would buy us nothing, but getting rid of the existing tests
> would be quite unfortunate.
We certainly don't have 100% test coverage.
Clearly adding tests incurs so
Dirk, my apologies, I was on travel the week you replied and missed your
message. I found it and will review / update now.
On 5/23/12 1:25 PM, "Dirk Pranke" wrote:
>On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>> As I have said in the past, we should just import all tests, and treat
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> As I have said in the past, we should just import all tests, and treat
> non-text, non-ref tests as pixel tests. If we wanted to reduce the number of
> pixel tests we import, then we should submit those patches to W3C instead of
> directly su
I agree. If nothing else, getting W3C tests into the WebKit repository will
help catch regressions.
From: Ryosuke Niwa mailto:rn...@webkit.org>>
To: Jacob Goldstein mailto:jac...@adobe.com>>
Cc: WebKit Development
mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org>>
Subject: Re: [webkit-
As I have said in the past, we should just import all tests, and treat
non-text, non-ref tests as pixel tests. If we wanted to reduce the number
of pixel tests we import, then we should submit those patches to W3C
instead of directly submitting them to WebKit.
In general, I don't buy the argument
At the WebKit contributor's meeting in April, we discussed a process for
importing third party tests into the WebKit repository (specifically, from the
W3C test repository).
I documented the process that we came up with at the meeting on the WebKit
wiki, here:
http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/Import
32 matches
Mail list logo
