On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That
>>> kind of misses the point of using a ref test in the
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
>
>> I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That
>> kind of misses the point of using a ref test in the first place. I mean,
>> you may as well check in port speci
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That
>> > kind of misses the point of using a ref test in the f
On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
> Here is a ref test result from ietestcenter:
> http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/ietestcenter/css3/flexbox/flexbox-flex-002-expected.htm
>
> Looking at that HTML file, it's not immediately obvious that the result is
> correct. If
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We don't currently support port-specific reftests
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
>
> > I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That
> kind of misses the point of using a ref test in the first place. I mean,
> you may as well check in port specific pi
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or
On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Tony Chang wrote:
> I don't think we should support port specific ref test results. That kind of
> misses the point of using a ref test in the first place. I mean, you may as
> well check in port specific pixel results which are easier to review for
> correctness.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke
> wrote:
> >>
> >> We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not
> >> very well), and we certainly should be tr
Right.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
> If we do add base test expectations shared by all platforms, please don’t put
> the file into LayoutTests/platform/generic; just put it at the top level of
> LayoutTests.
>
> -- Darin
> ___
If we do add base test expectations shared by all platforms, please don’t put
the file into LayoutTests/platform/generic; just put it at the top level of
LayoutTests.
-- Darin
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
>>
>> We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not
>> very well), and we certainly should be trying to minimize where they
>> occur.
>
>
> Hmm, I actually used port
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:
> We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not
> very well), and we certainly should be trying to minimize where they
> occur.
Hmm, I actually used port specific reftest expectation files in a recent
patch [1] (since ro
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> That would seem to work only if the test(s) fail the same way on all
> ports. In the case that I'm working from, I'm using reftests, where I know
> the correct expectations, but the actual behavior will (does) differ on
> different ports (whe
We don't currently support port-specific reftests (or at least, not
very well), and we certainly should be trying to minimize where they
occur. Perhaps we should discuss why you need them (in a separate
thread with a separate subject line)? It sounds like this largely has
to do with what features a
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> implements the expected behavior (on some but not all ports), and the
> comment further follow-on
>
s/the comment further/then commit further/
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.or
That would seem to work only if the test(s) fail the same way on all ports.
In the case that I'm working from, I'm using reftests, where I know the
correct expectations, but the actual behavior will (does) differ on
different ports (when the corresponding feature is committed).
I would like to be
That said, I think adding a generic TestExpectations file is a good
idea; it would allow us to replace the "-disabled" convention for some
tests and allow us to skip tests that were temporarily crashing or
timing out everywhere (which *-expected or *-failing wouldn't help
with). It should be easy e
It is customary to add a failing test expectation (i.e. *-expected.txt file
that contains the said failure) in such cases.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> Just checking, but I don't see a way to add test expectations that apply
> generically (to all ports).
>
> It would be
Just put the expected files in the same directory as the test.
Simon
On Nov 13, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> Just checking, but I don't see a way to add test expectations that apply
> generically (to all ports).
>
> It would be nice to have something like
> LayoutTests/platform/ge
Just checking, but I don't see a way to add test expectations that apply
generically (to all ports).
It would be nice to have something like
LayoutTests/platform/generic/TestExpectations to which one could add new
tests that are known to fail everywhere (e.g., because the code that
implements a fe
21 matches
Mail list logo
