On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Dan Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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). > This makes sense now. Thanks for clarifying. -Darin
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
