On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Dan Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 25, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
> > Why are some layout tests renamed with a suffix of -disabled? Why aren't
> > such tests simply added to the skipped list? Is -disabled simply the old
> > way?
>
> Usually a test is disabled, with a bug filed to re-enable it, when a WebKit
> bug makes it impossible to run the test (e.g. it crashes DumpRenderTree) or
> makes the test produce different results on each run (this can also be a bug
> in the test). The skipped lists are platform-specific, so they are not a good
> way to deal with such situations.
>
> My concern is that some tests may pass on some ports but not others.
For such cases, the skipped list is the way to go.
> If the tests are -disabled, then it prevents them from being run on ports
> where the tests function properly.
I see now that I didn’t make myself clear. By “WebKit bug” above I meant a bug
that affects all ports and platforms (maybe I should have said “a core WebKit
bug” or “a WebCore bug” :-) ).
> Since skipped lists prevent the test from being executed, doesn't it solve
> the problem of disabling a test for ports that can't handle it? What am I
> missing? :-)
The “tests that crash/hang/behave unpredictably on all ports” part.
There aren’t many -disabled tests, and I think it’s a good idea to audit them
and make sure that (a) they can’t be re-enabled (b) they can’t just be skipped
on some platforms and run on others and (c) there’s a bug filed on re-enabling
them (or fixing the reason why they can’t be enabled).
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
