You can do the same thing with NRWT that you can do with ORWT in this regard, but nothing new. The test_expectation.txt file does give you more fine-grained control than Skipped in the sense that you can distinguish between TEXT, IMAGE, CRASH, and TIMEOUT failures, but it doesn't let you distinguish between different sorts of TEXT failures, for example.
My sense is that the test_expectation.txt file is already somewhat over complicated for the problem it solves. In this case, the workflow of changing the expected results and filing a bug to track the failure seems like a reasonable solution, especially if there's a keyword or master bug that lets you find all these bugs easily. Adam On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Adam Roben <aro...@apple.com> wrote: > When a test starts failing on a bot that uses old-run-webkit-tests, we > typically check in expected failure results for that test (e.g., > <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/90235>). That way we can find out if the > test's behavior changes in the future even though the test is still failing. > This is particularly useful for tests that are actually testing multiple > things at once. (Maybe they should be broken up into multiple tests, but > that's a different discussion.) > > Is there a way to achieve this with new-run-webkit-tests? I know that you can > mark a test as an expected failure (either a text diff, or an image diff, or > both). Does it let you specify that the test should fail in a particular way? _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
