On Dec 8, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Peter Kasting wrote: > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Darin Adler <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m worried a bit, though, that if we can’t use any text in them at all, the > tests are then not at all self explanatory. You have to be an expert on the > test to understand what it’s testing and what success and failure look like. > > I think for tests where we're worried that's the case, we should (for now) > just go ahead and continue using text and having separate baselines. The > per-test cost is relatively low and the number of tests that fall into this > bucket is hopefully small?
All tests benefit from being obviously self-describing. I've had to debug failing tests that didn't describe what they were testing in words, and it's pretty hard a lot of the time to tell what is even supposed to be happening. > > Maybe we can come up with a new form of test that puts the explanation of the > test somewhere that will not be dumped and the test in a frame, and have the > pixel tests dump only the frame. > > That would also work. I like Darin's idea. Perhaps the dumpAsPixels call could take a frame argument. It's really handy if tests can be self-describing in the browser. Regards, Maciej
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
