Yes we certainly have many useless/broken tests in the repository.
Alexey is correct, that it's difficult to tell when a test is useless
however. :)
-eric
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> 2011/12/19 Alexey Proskuryakov :
>> Generally speaking, I think that it's not wort
2011/12/19 Alexey Proskuryakov :
> Generally speaking, I think that it's not worth it making existing tests
> pretty for the sake of prettiness or even consistency. It is very easy to
> lose some intended non-obvious properties of tests that way, as well as to
> lose unintended testing. We certainl
19.12.2011, в 7:08, Jarred Nicholls написал(а):
> I could spend a year improving our current tests; they are completely fugly.
Generally speaking, I think that it's not worth it making existing tests pretty
for the sake of prettiness or even consistency. It is very easy to lose some
intended n
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Adam Klein wrote:
> Which tests are you referring to? I've certainly written HTTP tests that
> use the JS test harness, e.g.,
> http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/http/tests/filesystem/resolve-uri.html.
> Note the resources are in fact copied to a sp
Which tests are you referring to? I've certainly written HTTP tests that
use the JS test harness, e.g.,
http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/http/tests/filesystem/resolve-uri.html.
Note the resources are in fact copied to a special '/js-test-resources/'
directory to make them accessible
Any particular reason we aren't using js-test-pre and js-test-post harness
code in our http tests, other than the fact that it's additional http
resources loaded per test?
I could spend a year improving our current tests; they are completely fugly.
Thanks,
Jarred
_
6 matches
Mail list logo
