On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Balazs Kelemen wrote:
>>>
>>> So the unit tests are superfluous. In particular, if I had to pick
>>> between only having unit tests or only having re
On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Balazs Kelemen 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
> 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 projec
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Balazs Kelemen 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 want to in
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Balazs Kelemen 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 want to incur
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, particu
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Zoltan Herczeg 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 right st
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Dirk Pranke 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 at this point
> a
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 O
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> >>
> >> It's a lot harder to dive into, a lot more cumbersome to improve, and
> not
> >> any easier to maintain.
> >>
> >
> > I defini
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>>
>>> Most of these abstractions were either added to make testing easier
>>> (and faster since we didn't have to write to a real fil
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dirk Pranke 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.
>
FWIW, I tho
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dirk Pranke 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
___
webkit-dev mailing
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Ryosuke Niwa 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 called
> test_shel
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>>>
>>> It's a lot harder to dive into, a lot more cumbersome to improve, and not
>>> any easier to maintain.
>>>
>>
>> I definitely agree
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Filip Pizlo 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. We've had many
On Jun 8, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> >>
> >> It's a lot harder to dive into, a lot more cumbersome to improve, and not
>
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> >>
> >> It's a lot harder to dive into, a lot more cumbersome to improve, and
> not
> >> any easier to maintain.
> >>
> >
> > I definit
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen wrote:
>>>
On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
> Hi,
>
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo 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
> shoul
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Filip Pizlo 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 features we needed t
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 improvem
On Jun 8, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
Hi,
Dirk Pranke írta:
> I believe most if not all of the por
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Zoltan Herczeg 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 were not allo
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen 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 c
Hi Ossy,
Thanks for your reply ...
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:46 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).
On Jun 8, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Filip Pizlo 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 Kelemen wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, O
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Zoltan Herczeg 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 were not a
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 9:25 AM, Filip Pizlo 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 Kelemen wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 06/08/2012 09:46 AM, Osztrogonac Csaba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Di
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:46 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
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 Kelemen 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 sta
On 06/08/2012 05:21 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen 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 fi
On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Balazs Kelemen 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 Appl
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 t
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 th
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 perhap
37 matches
Mail list logo